It's really rather hard to say, but I'd be willing to bet that the casual gamers bring more money in. However, it does depend on their economic situation. I'm a casual player of WoW and spend maybe a few hours here and there during the week/weekends, but I pay largely so that I have the game available as an entertainment fallback in the event I grow bored of other hobbies. If my guild is any indication of this demographic, we have a large number of working professionals who keep their accounts active solely for the purpose of having it available. I've been a paying customer since release and have never once cancelled, but then again, I haven't played nearly as much as some of my friends who are hardcore raiders.
I think much of the development effort goes into the hardcore segments simply because they are the most vocal. It's also possible that they receive more of the attention because casual gamers might look to them for the "next big thing." Failure to keep the hardcore gamers entertained well enough, and they are much more likely to dump the game for something else that comes available on the market. I recall that many of the hardcore sort from my realm dropped WoW as soon as LotR Online was released. Some of them dropped LotR Online within a few months and returned--others, well, I assume the remaining segment for which no rumors persisted must have grown up and gotten jobs or went off to university.
But, this is all contemplation based upon anecdotes. It certainly is possible that Blizzard develops most of their content for the hardcore segment because they might bring in the most steady amount of revenue (the 80/20 rule might apply here: 20% of the customer base brings in 80% of the revenue). On the other hand, it's also possibly a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. The market segment which is most noisy is the one that a) consumes the most resources (bandwidth, server time, etc) and b) requires the most development time. Thus, I really don't see how the casual gamer market would necessarily be a losing battle--if they pay for time and bandwidth they never use, it's at least 90% profit for Blizzard.
Looking back on it, I think it might be more applicable to compare WoW to ISPs (usage patterns do depend on the demographic and communities served, however). There's a significant number of users--although I'd wager it's less than 30-40%--who may pay for the lowest tier connection they can get away with but they use it only for e-mail and seeing pictures of the grandkids. Are casual gamers the "grandparents" of WoW who just log in periodically for a brief fix? It's hard to say, and I'm sure Blizzard would be wise to keep such numbers a closely guarded secret. Thus, one can only conclude either (or both) of the following: a) hardcore gamers bring in the most revenue, thus content is developed with a focus on them or b) casual gamers bring in a fairly significant chunk of cash and require the least amount of development time, therefore it is prudent to develop some content within easy reach of the casual gamer.
Keeping this in mind, think about some of the recent announcements regarding WotLK. It is rumors that even the Arthas encounter is going to be a 10-man instance with an option for better loot and a 25-man raid. I'm wondering if this change is intended to help casual gamers or smaller groups of an expected dwindling hardcore population? Regardless of which of these might be true, Blizzard is probably very well aware that its audience isn't getting much younger. My realm is a good example of this: Most players are working people and professionals now, whereas when it started, most of us were either just starting university or graduating high school. Now, however, most people are starting to move on in their adult lives and have little extra time to deal with (some are also going into graduate student programs). While this is only representative of my realm, I'd imagine it's a general trend across the entire playerbase. If Blizzard doesn't appeal to casual gamers, it's going to lose them to games that do.
Perhaps you should consider for a moment what Linus Torvalds said about a somewhat similar developer attitude (this is actually side-stepping your point which is valid for many projects). And I quote:
If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
This issue isn't entirely about missing features. It's about how the developers respond to the community regarding those features. I can almost guarantee you that if this hadn't been treated as "all users are idiots, we the developers know better," it wouldn't have devolved to the point where only a fork can provide a solution.
1. That intelligent life must arise only on high-iron-content planets (ever try making an electrical generator w/o metals? How were ETs going to run those high-energy transmitters to communicate with others w/o a power source?)
Maybe not, but the laws of physics and chemistry are pretty fixed. While it is possible that other forms of life might be capable of producing power internally (think electric eels) or using mechanisms outside our current understanding, there are other limitations that weigh against them. Thermodynamics is one such example that comes to mind.
2. That intelligent life must eventually leave the oceans for land (what, no fire means no possibility of intelligence???);
Perhaps the question is somewhat rhetorical. Assume that there is sea life on another world that has approximately the same intelligence as humans, they've established underwater cities, and have just begun to explore the depths of their world. Land life is far more likely to be inspired by a star-filled night than water life. Fair enough, it isn't a perfect point, but there are certainly greater opportunities on land for certain discoveries to be made than underwater. Electricity is another good example--such a thing wouldn't work too well underwater given that it would be afloat in what amounts to a virtually perfect ground.
3. That intelligent life must be motile;
I'm not sure why this point was even brought up. Life that is rooted to the ground isn't going to go anywhere. Yes, I mean that literally. Further, life that itself is somewhat restricted with regards to mobility may have seeds or spores that it can inject into the atmosphere (or stretching it, maybe space). However, what gives one form of life an evolutionary advantage does not necessarily make it intelligent. Fungus is highly successful and certainly not motile but it hasn't built a spaceship yet. (Perhaps it doesn't need to, as it can freely hitch a ride on anything that does.)
There is a strong advantage to simplicity.
4. That intelligent life must have hands or other means to manipulate tools (dolphins and whales are certainly intelligent);
Another obvious one. Dolphins and whales are intelligent, but I don't believe they've constructed anything. The ability to manipulate things with some degree of dexterity is important.
5. That intelligent life must communicate along the same lines we do (what if they use pheromones, for example)?
Pheromones? The whole point between intelligent communication involves a fairly rapid means of communicating abstract ideas. Squeezing out a bit of slightly-different smelling gas each time a creature had a new thought certainly won't be an effective means of communicating a plethora of ideas. I'd find this point a bit more inspirational if you suggested telekinesis or some such.
Great, every time I eat at Taco Bell from now on, I'll be thinking about communicating my thoughts to another person. Perhaps they'll understand.
If anything, TiVo showed that GPLv2 didn't even do that, and BSD licenses won't even try to stop TiVo-like antics.
BSD licenses won't stop TiVo-like antics because they can't.
The GPL versus BSD is something akin to Free Speech versus Free Beer. In the case of the latter, you're free to consume it (or distribute it) as you see fit--or just keep it to yourself. In the case of the former, speech is freely available and any modifications to it can (and must) be shared freely. It isn't a great analogy but it fits.
The premise of BSD-licensed distributions is to allow anyone to modify the source while keeping their modifications private. It's a bit misleading to suggest that such licenses could stop privatized alterations like this when their entire premise allows that activity to be encouraged.
actually, according to tfa liberals are better thinkers. imho old persons become conservative just because of decline of cognitive functions due to old age.
I have a difficult time believing that this comment was labeled "insightful."
Traditionally, conservatives are considered resistant to change and interested in maintaining the status quo. This notion is in league with the ideologies of most old (or older) individuals: it isn't a lack of "cognitive function" as much as it is the desire to maintain things as they were.
Besides, one needs to be very careful regarding studies that suggest one particular subset of the population is inferior in contrast to another. Remember what happened during the 1930s and 1940s... Jews were touted as inferior. Subscribing to the notion that those whose inherent ideologies--perhaps even their philosophical world view, interests, and so forth--are different from your own is dangerous.
I'm not sure you fully understand the ramifications of your quote.
It seems to me that if a "legendary music producer" seems to be discussing the notion of what essentially amounts to a library "subscription service" for music, perhaps we ought to listen? It doesn't seem all that far-fetched that this could be the ultimate end-game of the RIAA after all. Strip the individual's freedom to copy and listen to music they have purchased, and what are you left with? If legislation comes about that effectively outlaws any form of copying, I could certainly see a world where iPods are defunct and the only way one can listen to music is to use their recording industry-approved Sony "Netman" for their listening pleasure.
And sadly, if it were essentially ubiquitous, perhaps that legislation isn't necessary, after all. Provide a service for convenience and a large subset of the population will probably gobble it up--even for a monthly fee.
"What about your rights to copy the music as you choose," you might find yourself asking some stranger on the streets.
The answer? "Oh, why would I? I'm paying $19.95 a month to Sony. They let me play my music anywhere."
If the industry moves to a subscription model, you can bet your last dollar that CDs or any other form of copy-capable music distribution will be extinct the following day. Now, let's see if they start pushing for "secure" digital speakers so that listeners cannot intentionally use the analog signal to record from...
I think you're largely missing the point of his actions. Let me reiterate:
He was pushing the issue of civil rights--you know, the things that you and I both take for granted while sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer screen. It's easy to comment about what he "should have done" in retrospect, but what he did was really nothing more than being disobedient to conformity. According to Ohio State law, he was entirely in the right. The State law indicates that ID is not required, and I'm quite certain that the law has nothing to indicate that stores are allowed to detain their customers for mere suspicion. Besides, what reasonable shoplifter would hide something in a bag that they KNOW is going to be searched? As a store manager, I would be more concerned about a shoplifter hiding something on their person. If there's two items in a store-labeled bag, chances are they aren't stolen.
But this does bring up another more frightening issue. Those of you who seem to believe this man was in the wrong would probably also, by way of implication, also agree with pat-down searches by store employees. Maybe you'd agree with emptying your pockets out (oh dear, imagine the embarrassment if you had something slip out of your wallet during such a search), taking off your shoes, or allowing them to confiscate something they feel you shouldn't have for your own "safety." By way of conceding to one form of search, we are slowly allowing commercial operations to erode our right to privacy. Is that such a good thing to give up in order to prevent thievery?
Now, I certainly would never have done what this guy did. I'd rather let the store search my bag and be done with it. But people like me aren't the ones who rescue our civil rights. We're the ones who conform--who allow our rights to be taken away. If it weren't for individuals like this man, I can guarantee you that African Americans would still have to give up their seats in buses. If it weren't for individuals like this man, the Civil Rights Movement would never have happened. Civil rights is a notion that is paved by the hard work, sweat, and blood of those who are willing to sacrifice--whether momentarily or permanently--their own freedoms so that the rest of us may enjoy ours.
It isn't that difficult a topic to consider...
Nor is this an issue of one political side versus another. I'm a conservative, and I agree that this man did the Right Thing. This is an issue that should transcend political boundaries, and those who feel he should have given up his rights are naive to the reality of the world in which we live. As a conservative (and I mean this not in the original sense of it--but in the sense that most right-leaning individuals are opposed to government intervention and extension), I see this as an infringement of the State; an extension of government where government does not belong. I see this as an erosion of liberties. Likewise, I would assume that my liberal (left-leaning) comrades would agree but for different reasons. To them, this action by Circuit City and by law enforcement is a gross violation of this man's civil liberties, and his rights to privacy. I don't think it matters much which side of the political fence you're on. This is an issue that any reasonable person can agree with. If you don't agree and feel that he SHOULD have been arrested, then perhaps you also don't fully understand the importance of the freedoms we DO have. It doesn't take much for them to whittle away--clandestine laws, social engineering tactics, aggressive enforcement of the law where it doesn't apply... the list goes on and on. Before long, we won't have the freedom to so much as walk out of our front doors without inspection and identification. Is that what you want?
Our civil rights are important. It takes the willing sacrifice of one's freedoms in order to protect them by and large. Without such sacrifices, we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we have. It's a bit of food for thought.
> We all know the space fleet is beyond it's shelf life. So why hasn't it been scraped and reinvented with more pioneering technology?
It sort of has been proposed that the shuttle should be replaced with "more pioneering technology." But you'll notice that the current ideas on the table, specifically the Orion spacecraft, are similar in design to something from the Apollo era with some technology borrowed from the shuttle. What's old is new again, I suppose.
I know, I'm sure you were expecting something Star Trek-esque rather than the antiquated splash-down capsule for four to six astronauts. But, save for Apollo One, we never lost any crews on the Apollo missions--and Apollo One was lost on the launch pad. (Understandably, the shuttles have flown far more missions, but there's something to be said for simple design.)
It isn't directly their fault. This article is a reprint of the MIT press release. Admittedly, it's just as embarrassingly pathetic. SD must be hard-pressed for stories to be reaching into the press release bin for rubbish written as poorly as this...
I have to agree with this sentiment. The article seems to have been targeted at a fifth grade reading level (or below) and was quite painful to read. It isn't Science Daily's fault, however, as it appears the article was not an "adaptation" but rather a blatant reprint of the original press release. Oh, silly me, I forgot one minor detail: Adaptations are little more than a copy and paste away!
The WIND-SWE group appears to have links to some of the papers they have presented. I'm not sure of the relevancy but it might make for a worthwhile read to curious minds.
Perhaps it is a bit pertinent to get your facts straight. I apologize for my bluntness, but according to the US Census Bureau, NM has a population of a meager 1,928,384 people (2000 census). Certainly a great deal can happen in 7 years since the 2000 census, but as a resident of the State, I can vouch that the growth rate is quite low. The rest of your points are quite entertaining, facts notwithstanding. Here are some other demographics you might find useful, including the fact that NM has a higher-than-average percentage of people who stake no claim on any religion in particular. Okay, granted, perhaps your bias against the State comes from the unfortunate book burning that took place here in Alamogordo. Shameful actions, really, but I assure you they aren't representative of the population as a whole (though I'd assume I might be labeled a heretic should they read this particular post).
So, that brings me to a quote from your post:
Being enlightened slashdotters, most of us have little appreciation for how stupid people really are. I am here to say that yes, they are that stupid.
Enlightened, eh? Speak for yourself. For being clever enough to post on Slashdot, I'm rather appalled you didn't take the five minutes' time to seek out demographical facts. Shameful indeed.
I suppose, then, that by implication, you cherish the notion of taking the "parent" out of "parenting." Fair enough, your argument didn't explicitly target children itself (save for the McDonald's commentary).
The problem with shifting responsibility from individuals to the law is that it eliminates the freedom of choice. If someone wants to sit on their duff for hours on end, they are free to do so. While I am aware that the natural reply to such a notion is "It increases the costs of health care for all of us," I will remind you that health care in the US is already largely borked. Legislation against criminal activities is fine, but criminalizing legitimate activities that do not directly harm anyone, such as playing games or eating fattening food, is simply absurd. Suing, thus, accomplishes nothing than to appease those who, like yourself, clearly do not approve of free choice or the free market. I don't recall stories of Blizzard holding a gun to anyone's head, indicating that failure to play their game may result in unholy punishment (insert lame joke here, Anonymous Cowards).
Ultimately, the "health legislation" movement in this country is counter-productive. While stating children shouldn't be sitting in front of the television, game console, computer, or eating fast food, they simultaneously declare that traditional children's games are violent and dangerous. I'm sorry, little Johnny, I don't want you playing video games, but you can't go outside and play tag, either! I don't think tree-hugging burns a great deal of calories--certainly not as many as cutting one down with a hand saw. And could you imagine the sort of ruckus that would be generated by the bleeding hearts if we armed our children with hand saws? On the other hand, it might not be so bad; imagine telling an angry child armed with a hand saw who was responsible for taking away tag or dodgeball...
I apologize ahead of time for any angry children cutting down your front door, demanding to have their "fun" games back.
I commend you for your attempt to uphold a decent debate in the realm of Slashdot, wherein trolls and other bottom-feeders seek refuge. I also think you're partially correctly, though I believe you have overlooked a significant contributing factor to the cause (both in regards to the public view of the RIAA and why the average Slashdotter upholds copyright infrigement as insignificant).
The problem, as with most, can be boiled down to a matter of economics. Most of those who commit such infrigement, such as teenagers, likely cannot afford to buy every album they might listen to--and often don't. Sometimes acts of disregard for the law are considered harmless by teenagers; it's unfortunate, but it's the truth. Think about the bratty kid next door who fitfully tromps on your wife's rosebed, has a hearty laugh at her dismay, and continued about his business on his way to school. He certainly broke the law, did he not? By damaging property that was not his own, he has demonstrated his capacity as a criminal. But, for the sake of argument, which is the more appropriate means of punishment: a $50,000 fine (which will punish his parents, not him) or a Good 'Ol Talkin' to? Okay, so the latter might not work in this day and age (child protective services doesn't seem too fond of Daddy pulling out his leather belt and giving the child a good lick or two), but I think it demonstrates rather well the direction we've taken from sensible laws to the absurd. I never thought I'd see the day when punishment dealt to violent criminals seems pale in comparison to that given to those who might otherwise obey the law (and only possibly break laws that put no one in immediate danger). Alas, I digress.
The last time I went to the local record store, I noticed much to my dismay that the popular music albums--presumbaly that which is marketed by our loving, caring, sympathetic friends affectionately known as the RIAA--was about $18. For most releases, that's almost $1.50 a track, USD. I would also imagine that threshold is outside of most teens' budget range, particularly when taking into consideration other forms of media in which they participate, be it after-school activities, movies, video games, or the like (whatever happened to curling up with a good book?). Therein lies the problem: economics. The affordability of the media has drastically gone out of sight for most young people and those who might be too poor to afford it. I never did like mainstream music, thankfully, and I purchase all of my music through Amazon for a meager $10-14 USD for quality music. It's great for imported CDs, too.
I think selling music via digital formats is a great idea, but I also think that the RIAA caught on to the notion a bit too late. More importantly, they're still raising a fuss about it being too cheap! I would wager that, by decreasing the cost of a work to something within a much more sane cost bracket, they would notice an increase in sales. It appears to me that several industries caught on to this idea a long time ago; perhaps some executives need to revisit their old economics courses?
On the other hand, perhaps this is another symptom of the cause. The massive beast that has become the Recording Industry must be fed, and it must be fed in massive quantities. They certainly have an immense marketing engine behind them capable of churning out those who become teenage icons--no matter how poorly we might view them--virtually day after day. But it has become a problem of sustainability; in order to afford finding the "next Britney Spears," they must spend money on their marketing machine. By spending money on their marketing machine, they must continually increase the price at which they sell their albums. By increasing the price of the album, they are effectively dismissing their largest consumer: The parents of the teenagers who want to consume the music. This is where illegal downloads comes in: before it became taboo, it seemed to be a legitimate way to obtain music for those yo
I realize you may be joking quite sarcastically, but I think the authors of the original script should be credited. Affording credit for the script may have been an oversight by the original poster, which is quite unfortunate (unless the individual happens to be one of the authors; I doubt that, however).
Qrpff, according to this link, consists of two scripts, both of which are capable of performing DeCSS. The version posted by the OP is the six-line version.
All your revenue are belong to Microsoft- apparently.
Actually, as bizarre as this might sound, I think Microsoft's reasoning behind this has to do with their position regarding Intellectual Property. They don't really stand to lose anything backing a company that is selling licenses to something intangible as if it were tangible, material property. Microsoft--and most big companies concerned about IP rights--knows full well that by throwing their weight behind something that can push intangible goods closer to the boundary of "real" property, society and, eventually, the courts will side with them.
While this seems like a Good Thing (tm), I am suspicious of the software giant's motives. Microsoft certainly stands to gain a lot by having your average Joe User think of software as something synonymous with real property. Ultimately, I think that this move could have potential ramifications for software-as-speech. We all know that Microsoft really wants software to be treated like any other tangible property, and certainly something as trivial as a license seems insignificant--it might even seem like the right thing to do. A license is property, after all, but the idea is a bit bigger than that. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but it seems odd to me that Microsoft would support something like this--unless they see a strong legal benefit in the near future, particularly by set precedence...
Perhaps you need to yell at the person who invented math.
Returning to the topic at hand--I think part of the reason your commentary is examined under the scrutiny of cynicism is because it really is rather incredible that, over the course of 114 shuttle missions (IIRC), we have had only two accidents. An accident event rating of just under 2% for hoisting a large piece of equipment into orbit and returning it to Earth again is actually very good. Considering that only one accident occurred during reentry, it's even more incredible. (The Challenger incident would have been easily avoided had NASA actually followed Richard Feynman's recommendations.)
Are there problems with the shuttle program? Absolutely. But I think it's a bit unfair to make the distinctions you did earlier on.
I think he also must have failed English, inconjunction with being a crazy zealot. He clearly needs to have his exclamation points taken away from him. Unfortunately, given such zealotry, I suspect that his campaign would shift from pro-Microsoft to anti-grammatical-correctness overnight.
Did anyone else notice the excessive use of exclamation points in TFA? I am by no means a great writer, but I recall rather vividly a quote from someone (either a former instructor or someone else--enlighten me) that I will paraphrase as such: One should use exclamation points sparingly but not exceed more than two during the course of one's life. This gentleman has exceeded his exclamation quota, and I believe he needs to come in from recess. The hot weather is making him delusional.
I'd also like to thank the parent for a wonderful, step-by-step commentary on Varun's article.
What really surprises me here is the response this has received from the Slashdot readership. I've only seen a few people point out the fundamental truth behind Dvorak's flamebait, and I can state it very simply--perhaps simply enough that even Dvorak might understand.
Creative Commons is neither a replacement for nor a substitute of Copyright Law. Creative Commons, like the GPL, is a license that works separately from Copyright. For instance, Microsoft owns the Copyright to the Windows Operating Shi^H^H^HSystem, but end users are allowed to use the OS under the terms and conditions specified by the EULA--a license that limits the user's rights in addition to the limitations of Copyright. All Creative Commons does is provide licenses that afford end users more extensive rights to distribute and/or modify a work under a CC license; the Copyright is still held by the author.
Unlike some posters, I do believe Dvorak is a troll. He is deliberately misrepresenting numerous facts, all of which are easily accessible on the Internet. Then again, I might be mistaken--perhaps he isn't misrepresenting facts and is, instead, just an idiot. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a license and a Copyright. I wish more Slashdot posters would debate on these terms, too, as it proves quite simply Dvorak is a published troll.
(Slightly off-topic: I'm really beginning to wonder if the Anonymous Coward is really just reserved for Dvorak so he can post incognito.)
in php its no big deal to make sure that anything you stuff in a db is safe - just do an $valueToStore = htmlentities($valueFromPoster). So either do the same in perl, or convert to php.
htmlentities() does nothing to ensure the string is DB safe--it only ensures that the string is "render safe" in HTML. If you want to make sure that a string is DB safe, look at the various database related *_escape_string() functions. Oh, and turn off magic_quotes_*--the entire notion behind magic quotes is incredibly ridiculous and only encourages new coders to write bad code (because they'll assume their strings are always quoted properly, even if incorrectly). Some links that might be of use:
To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
It's called tort reform (AFAIK) and nearly every nation I can think of (Australia, UK, Canada) has it, save for the United States. Being that we're a nation whose legislative processes are governed almost exclusively by the interests of lawyers, it's no wonder we'll likely never see such an animal.
The F-2 is the new Japanese frontline fighter and employs stealth technology developed by Japanese engineers. The F-2 is distinctly inferior to the American F-22 but is a source of pride for the Japanese military.
It's inferior because it's an F-16 airframe with radar absorbent materials on the leading edges. At least, according to the Wikipedia article to which you linked.
The incorporation of RAM (ACs: insert lame computer-hardware related joke here) into an aircraft does not make it stealthy. Ever wondered why the F-117, B-2, and for that matter the F-22 look rather unusual? It is because shape is much more important than the coating.
Having said this, the F-16 (and derivatives) are nevertheless remarkable aircraft. I have heard that some of the more experienced F-16 pilots have been fairly consistent in out-maneuvering the F-22 in exercises. With the introduction of stealth technologies, it is a shame to see such an incredible aircraft see the end of its line. (I would've probably said this about the P-51, too.)
American citizens, this is why the rest of the world has problems with your country. Go on, mod me a troll, but you know... its really true.
I love my country; I love what America stands for.
However, the direction we (speaking from a US-centric position) are going is not very wise, and so I would have to agree with you--it is true. Now, I'm probably going to be modded down for what I am about to say, but I think that a lot of it is relevant to this case. Let's review a few things that have happened in the passed year or less that is dangerous to the USA and her allies.
1) The Schiavo case. It's insignificant to most/. readers--I'm sure--and a majority of the right-to-die crowd will have their blood boiling over this. However, any guess what the early Nazi/pre-Nazi leadership was doing in Germany? For starters--it wasn't really all that much different from what happened in the Schiavo case. Disabled (and severely handicapped) people were starved or euthenized; in fact, the handicapped were the second largest group of victims of the Nazi regime.
This isn't to say that the Schiavo case is even remotely similar. However, it has certainly opened a pandora's box that I think has the potential to be very bad.
2) New London, Connecticut property seizures. While the Fifth Amendment allows government to seize property "for public use," it does not allow for private property to be seized and granted to other private property owners--not until now. In today's USA, property (read: wealth) redistribution can legally occur upwards. What this means is that wealthier entities can now seize the property of less wealthy entities and the action is sanctioned by the government. God help you if you live on ocean front property or other "prime real estate" locations.
3) Chip Salzenberg has a legal problem along similar lines. Admittedly, he shouldn't have threatened legal action against the company--big mistake--but his property was unjustly seized (IMO) based upon fraudulent claims. I would think this should be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, particularly if the company were responsible for forging documents (I don't know their side of the story, so my opinion on this is likely to change).
And now...
4) Something written, potentially in jest and very likely taken out of context, can affect the outcome of a legal battle years and years down the road? The ramifications of this are absurd--does this imply that, if an ex of mine said "I wish you'd just die" and I die ten years down the road, my parents would be able to file suit against her in a potential murder case? Come on. I realize this is incredibly out of context, but frankly, given the idiotic nature of recent rulings, I can't say as I would be surprised.
So in short, I would agree. The US has problems--big problems. Perhaps I'm overreacting, perhaps I'm reading too far into this mess, but let's be honest here. The rest of the world is scratching its head after the last week's news coming out of the USA thinking we've lost our marbles. "Seizing private property and awarding it to a company? What is WRONG with the Americans?"
It's our courts. The people can't vote on issues like this--they are decided by people who are appointed. Our legal system has its benefits, but in recent months, I'm begining to wonder if its design isn't almost entirely broken. Or may we're dragging too many decisions into the courts when they should be decided by a vote at the community level?
Slashdot Mirror
It's really rather hard to say, but I'd be willing to bet that the casual gamers bring more money in. However, it does depend on their economic situation. I'm a casual player of WoW and spend maybe a few hours here and there during the week/weekends, but I pay largely so that I have the game available as an entertainment fallback in the event I grow bored of other hobbies. If my guild is any indication of this demographic, we have a large number of working professionals who keep their accounts active solely for the purpose of having it available. I've been a paying customer since release and have never once cancelled, but then again, I haven't played nearly as much as some of my friends who are hardcore raiders.
I think much of the development effort goes into the hardcore segments simply because they are the most vocal. It's also possible that they receive more of the attention because casual gamers might look to them for the "next big thing." Failure to keep the hardcore gamers entertained well enough, and they are much more likely to dump the game for something else that comes available on the market. I recall that many of the hardcore sort from my realm dropped WoW as soon as LotR Online was released. Some of them dropped LotR Online within a few months and returned--others, well, I assume the remaining segment for which no rumors persisted must have grown up and gotten jobs or went off to university.
But, this is all contemplation based upon anecdotes. It certainly is possible that Blizzard develops most of their content for the hardcore segment because they might bring in the most steady amount of revenue (the 80/20 rule might apply here: 20% of the customer base brings in 80% of the revenue). On the other hand, it's also possibly a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. The market segment which is most noisy is the one that a) consumes the most resources (bandwidth, server time, etc) and b) requires the most development time. Thus, I really don't see how the casual gamer market would necessarily be a losing battle--if they pay for time and bandwidth they never use, it's at least 90% profit for Blizzard.
Looking back on it, I think it might be more applicable to compare WoW to ISPs (usage patterns do depend on the demographic and communities served, however). There's a significant number of users--although I'd wager it's less than 30-40%--who may pay for the lowest tier connection they can get away with but they use it only for e-mail and seeing pictures of the grandkids. Are casual gamers the "grandparents" of WoW who just log in periodically for a brief fix? It's hard to say, and I'm sure Blizzard would be wise to keep such numbers a closely guarded secret. Thus, one can only conclude either (or both) of the following: a) hardcore gamers bring in the most revenue, thus content is developed with a focus on them or b) casual gamers bring in a fairly significant chunk of cash and require the least amount of development time, therefore it is prudent to develop some content within easy reach of the casual gamer.
Keeping this in mind, think about some of the recent announcements regarding WotLK. It is rumors that even the Arthas encounter is going to be a 10-man instance with an option for better loot and a 25-man raid. I'm wondering if this change is intended to help casual gamers or smaller groups of an expected dwindling hardcore population? Regardless of which of these might be true, Blizzard is probably very well aware that its audience isn't getting much younger. My realm is a good example of this: Most players are working people and professionals now, whereas when it started, most of us were either just starting university or graduating high school. Now, however, most people are starting to move on in their adult lives and have little extra time to deal with (some are also going into graduate student programs). While this is only representative of my realm, I'd imagine it's a general trend across the entire playerbase. If Blizzard doesn't appeal to casual gamers, it's going to lose them to games that do.
Especially if you're a warlock, because all you have to do is roll your face.
1. That intelligent life must arise only on high-iron-content planets (ever try making an electrical generator w/o metals? How were ETs going to run those high-energy transmitters to communicate with others w/o a power source?)
Maybe not, but the laws of physics and chemistry are pretty fixed. While it is possible that other forms of life might be capable of producing power internally (think electric eels) or using mechanisms outside our current understanding, there are other limitations that weigh against them. Thermodynamics is one such example that comes to mind.
2. That intelligent life must eventually leave the oceans for land (what, no fire means no possibility of intelligence???);
Perhaps the question is somewhat rhetorical. Assume that there is sea life on another world that has approximately the same intelligence as humans, they've established underwater cities, and have just begun to explore the depths of their world. Land life is far more likely to be inspired by a star-filled night than water life. Fair enough, it isn't a perfect point, but there are certainly greater opportunities on land for certain discoveries to be made than underwater. Electricity is another good example--such a thing wouldn't work too well underwater given that it would be afloat in what amounts to a virtually perfect ground.
3. That intelligent life must be motile;
I'm not sure why this point was even brought up. Life that is rooted to the ground isn't going to go anywhere. Yes, I mean that literally. Further, life that itself is somewhat restricted with regards to mobility may have seeds or spores that it can inject into the atmosphere (or stretching it, maybe space). However, what gives one form of life an evolutionary advantage does not necessarily make it intelligent. Fungus is highly successful and certainly not motile but it hasn't built a spaceship yet. (Perhaps it doesn't need to, as it can freely hitch a ride on anything that does.)
There is a strong advantage to simplicity.
4. That intelligent life must have hands or other means to manipulate tools (dolphins and whales are certainly intelligent);
Another obvious one. Dolphins and whales are intelligent, but I don't believe they've constructed anything. The ability to manipulate things with some degree of dexterity is important.
5. That intelligent life must communicate along the same lines we do (what if they use pheromones, for example)?
Pheromones? The whole point between intelligent communication involves a fairly rapid means of communicating abstract ideas. Squeezing out a bit of slightly-different smelling gas each time a creature had a new thought certainly won't be an effective means of communicating a plethora of ideas. I'd find this point a bit more inspirational if you suggested telekinesis or some such.
Great, every time I eat at Taco Bell from now on, I'll be thinking about communicating my thoughts to another person. Perhaps they'll understand.
Or "He told me it fell off the back of a delivery truck."
I guess that applies to this domain as well.
BSD licenses won't stop TiVo-like antics because they can't.
The GPL versus BSD is something akin to Free Speech versus Free Beer. In the case of the latter, you're free to consume it (or distribute it) as you see fit--or just keep it to yourself. In the case of the former, speech is freely available and any modifications to it can (and must) be shared freely. It isn't a great analogy but it fits.
The premise of BSD-licensed distributions is to allow anyone to modify the source while keeping their modifications private. It's a bit misleading to suggest that such licenses could stop privatized alterations like this when their entire premise allows that activity to be encouraged.
I have a difficult time believing that this comment was labeled "insightful."
Traditionally, conservatives are considered resistant to change and interested in maintaining the status quo. This notion is in league with the ideologies of most old (or older) individuals: it isn't a lack of "cognitive function" as much as it is the desire to maintain things as they were.
Besides, one needs to be very careful regarding studies that suggest one particular subset of the population is inferior in contrast to another. Remember what happened during the 1930s and 1940s... Jews were touted as inferior. Subscribing to the notion that those whose inherent ideologies--perhaps even their philosophical world view, interests, and so forth--are different from your own is dangerous.
I'm not sure you fully understand the ramifications of your quote.
It seems to me that if a "legendary music producer" seems to be discussing the notion of what essentially amounts to a library "subscription service" for music, perhaps we ought to listen? It doesn't seem all that far-fetched that this could be the ultimate end-game of the RIAA after all. Strip the individual's freedom to copy and listen to music they have purchased, and what are you left with? If legislation comes about that effectively outlaws any form of copying, I could certainly see a world where iPods are defunct and the only way one can listen to music is to use their recording industry-approved Sony "Netman" for their listening pleasure.
And sadly, if it were essentially ubiquitous, perhaps that legislation isn't necessary, after all. Provide a service for convenience and a large subset of the population will probably gobble it up--even for a monthly fee.
"What about your rights to copy the music as you choose," you might find yourself asking some stranger on the streets.
The answer? "Oh, why would I? I'm paying $19.95 a month to Sony. They let me play my music anywhere."
If the industry moves to a subscription model, you can bet your last dollar that CDs or any other form of copy-capable music distribution will be extinct the following day. Now, let's see if they start pushing for "secure" digital speakers so that listeners cannot intentionally use the analog signal to record from...
I think you're largely missing the point of his actions. Let me reiterate:
He was pushing the issue of civil rights--you know, the things that you and I both take for granted while sitting in a comfy chair in front of a computer screen. It's easy to comment about what he "should have done" in retrospect, but what he did was really nothing more than being disobedient to conformity. According to Ohio State law, he was entirely in the right. The State law indicates that ID is not required, and I'm quite certain that the law has nothing to indicate that stores are allowed to detain their customers for mere suspicion. Besides, what reasonable shoplifter would hide something in a bag that they KNOW is going to be searched? As a store manager, I would be more concerned about a shoplifter hiding something on their person. If there's two items in a store-labeled bag, chances are they aren't stolen.
But this does bring up another more frightening issue. Those of you who seem to believe this man was in the wrong would probably also, by way of implication, also agree with pat-down searches by store employees. Maybe you'd agree with emptying your pockets out (oh dear, imagine the embarrassment if you had something slip out of your wallet during such a search), taking off your shoes, or allowing them to confiscate something they feel you shouldn't have for your own "safety." By way of conceding to one form of search, we are slowly allowing commercial operations to erode our right to privacy. Is that such a good thing to give up in order to prevent thievery?
Now, I certainly would never have done what this guy did. I'd rather let the store search my bag and be done with it. But people like me aren't the ones who rescue our civil rights. We're the ones who conform--who allow our rights to be taken away. If it weren't for individuals like this man, I can guarantee you that African Americans would still have to give up their seats in buses. If it weren't for individuals like this man, the Civil Rights Movement would never have happened. Civil rights is a notion that is paved by the hard work, sweat, and blood of those who are willing to sacrifice--whether momentarily or permanently--their own freedoms so that the rest of us may enjoy ours.
It isn't that difficult a topic to consider...
Nor is this an issue of one political side versus another. I'm a conservative, and I agree that this man did the Right Thing. This is an issue that should transcend political boundaries, and those who feel he should have given up his rights are naive to the reality of the world in which we live. As a conservative (and I mean this not in the original sense of it--but in the sense that most right-leaning individuals are opposed to government intervention and extension), I see this as an infringement of the State; an extension of government where government does not belong. I see this as an erosion of liberties. Likewise, I would assume that my liberal (left-leaning) comrades would agree but for different reasons. To them, this action by Circuit City and by law enforcement is a gross violation of this man's civil liberties, and his rights to privacy. I don't think it matters much which side of the political fence you're on. This is an issue that any reasonable person can agree with. If you don't agree and feel that he SHOULD have been arrested, then perhaps you also don't fully understand the importance of the freedoms we DO have. It doesn't take much for them to whittle away--clandestine laws, social engineering tactics, aggressive enforcement of the law where it doesn't apply... the list goes on and on. Before long, we won't have the freedom to so much as walk out of our front doors without inspection and identification. Is that what you want?
Our civil rights are important. It takes the willing sacrifice of one's freedoms in order to protect them by and large. Without such sacrifices, we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we have. It's a bit of food for thought.
> We all know the space fleet is beyond it's shelf life. So why hasn't it been scraped and reinvented with more pioneering technology?
It sort of has been proposed that the shuttle should be replaced with "more pioneering technology." But you'll notice that the current ideas on the table, specifically the Orion spacecraft, are similar in design to something from the Apollo era with some technology borrowed from the shuttle. What's old is new again, I suppose.
I know, I'm sure you were expecting something Star Trek-esque rather than the antiquated splash-down capsule for four to six astronauts. But, save for Apollo One, we never lost any crews on the Apollo missions--and Apollo One was lost on the launch pad. (Understandably, the shuttles have flown far more missions, but there's something to be said for simple design.)
The Science Daily article gets stuff a bit wrong.
It isn't directly their fault. This article is a reprint of the MIT press release. Admittedly, it's just as embarrassingly pathetic. SD must be hard-pressed for stories to be reaching into the press release bin for rubbish written as poorly as this...
I have to agree with this sentiment. The article seems to have been targeted at a fifth grade reading level (or below) and was quite painful to read. It isn't Science Daily's fault, however, as it appears the article was not an "adaptation" but rather a blatant reprint of the original press release. Oh, silly me, I forgot one minor detail: Adaptations are little more than a copy and paste away!
The WIND-SWE group appears to have links to some of the papers they have presented. I'm not sure of the relevancy but it might make for a worthwhile read to curious minds.
Perhaps it is a bit pertinent to get your facts straight. I apologize for my bluntness, but according to the US Census Bureau, NM has a population of a meager 1,928,384 people (2000 census). Certainly a great deal can happen in 7 years since the 2000 census, but as a resident of the State, I can vouch that the growth rate is quite low. The rest of your points are quite entertaining, facts notwithstanding. Here are some other demographics you might find useful, including the fact that NM has a higher-than-average percentage of people who stake no claim on any religion in particular. Okay, granted, perhaps your bias against the State comes from the unfortunate book burning that took place here in Alamogordo. Shameful actions, really, but I assure you they aren't representative of the population as a whole (though I'd assume I might be labeled a heretic should they read this particular post).
So, that brings me to a quote from your post:
Being enlightened slashdotters, most of us have little appreciation for how stupid people really are. I am here to say that yes, they are that stupid.
Enlightened, eh? Speak for yourself. For being clever enough to post on Slashdot, I'm rather appalled you didn't take the five minutes' time to seek out demographical facts. Shameful indeed.
I suppose, then, that by implication, you cherish the notion of taking the "parent" out of "parenting." Fair enough, your argument didn't explicitly target children itself (save for the McDonald's commentary).
The problem with shifting responsibility from individuals to the law is that it eliminates the freedom of choice. If someone wants to sit on their duff for hours on end, they are free to do so. While I am aware that the natural reply to such a notion is "It increases the costs of health care for all of us," I will remind you that health care in the US is already largely borked. Legislation against criminal activities is fine, but criminalizing legitimate activities that do not directly harm anyone, such as playing games or eating fattening food, is simply absurd. Suing, thus, accomplishes nothing than to appease those who, like yourself, clearly do not approve of free choice or the free market. I don't recall stories of Blizzard holding a gun to anyone's head, indicating that failure to play their game may result in unholy punishment (insert lame joke here, Anonymous Cowards).
Ultimately, the "health legislation" movement in this country is counter-productive. While stating children shouldn't be sitting in front of the television, game console, computer, or eating fast food, they simultaneously declare that traditional children's games are violent and dangerous. I'm sorry, little Johnny, I don't want you playing video games, but you can't go outside and play tag, either! I don't think tree-hugging burns a great deal of calories--certainly not as many as cutting one down with a hand saw. And could you imagine the sort of ruckus that would be generated by the bleeding hearts if we armed our children with hand saws? On the other hand, it might not be so bad; imagine telling an angry child armed with a hand saw who was responsible for taking away tag or dodgeball...
I apologize ahead of time for any angry children cutting down your front door, demanding to have their "fun" games back.
I commend you for your attempt to uphold a decent debate in the realm of Slashdot, wherein trolls and other bottom-feeders seek refuge. I also think you're partially correctly, though I believe you have overlooked a significant contributing factor to the cause (both in regards to the public view of the RIAA and why the average Slashdotter upholds copyright infrigement as insignificant).
The problem, as with most, can be boiled down to a matter of economics. Most of those who commit such infrigement, such as teenagers, likely cannot afford to buy every album they might listen to--and often don't. Sometimes acts of disregard for the law are considered harmless by teenagers; it's unfortunate, but it's the truth. Think about the bratty kid next door who fitfully tromps on your wife's rosebed, has a hearty laugh at her dismay, and continued about his business on his way to school. He certainly broke the law, did he not? By damaging property that was not his own, he has demonstrated his capacity as a criminal. But, for the sake of argument, which is the more appropriate means of punishment: a $50,000 fine (which will punish his parents, not him) or a Good 'Ol Talkin' to? Okay, so the latter might not work in this day and age (child protective services doesn't seem too fond of Daddy pulling out his leather belt and giving the child a good lick or two), but I think it demonstrates rather well the direction we've taken from sensible laws to the absurd. I never thought I'd see the day when punishment dealt to violent criminals seems pale in comparison to that given to those who might otherwise obey the law (and only possibly break laws that put no one in immediate danger). Alas, I digress.
The last time I went to the local record store, I noticed much to my dismay that the popular music albums--presumbaly that which is marketed by our loving, caring, sympathetic friends affectionately known as the RIAA--was about $18. For most releases, that's almost $1.50 a track, USD. I would also imagine that threshold is outside of most teens' budget range, particularly when taking into consideration other forms of media in which they participate, be it after-school activities, movies, video games, or the like (whatever happened to curling up with a good book?). Therein lies the problem: economics. The affordability of the media has drastically gone out of sight for most young people and those who might be too poor to afford it. I never did like mainstream music, thankfully, and I purchase all of my music through Amazon for a meager $10-14 USD for quality music. It's great for imported CDs, too.
I think selling music via digital formats is a great idea, but I also think that the RIAA caught on to the notion a bit too late. More importantly, they're still raising a fuss about it being too cheap! I would wager that, by decreasing the cost of a work to something within a much more sane cost bracket, they would notice an increase in sales. It appears to me that several industries caught on to this idea a long time ago; perhaps some executives need to revisit their old economics courses?
On the other hand, perhaps this is another symptom of the cause. The massive beast that has become the Recording Industry must be fed, and it must be fed in massive quantities. They certainly have an immense marketing engine behind them capable of churning out those who become teenage icons--no matter how poorly we might view them--virtually day after day. But it has become a problem of sustainability; in order to afford finding the "next Britney Spears," they must spend money on their marketing machine. By spending money on their marketing machine, they must continually increase the price at which they sell their albums. By increasing the price of the album, they are effectively dismissing their largest consumer: The parents of the teenagers who want to consume the music. This is where illegal downloads comes in: before it became taboo, it seemed to be a legitimate way to obtain music for those yo
I realize you may be joking quite sarcastically, but I think the authors of the original script should be credited. Affording credit for the script may have been an oversight by the original poster, which is quite unfortunate (unless the individual happens to be one of the authors; I doubt that, however).
Qrpff, according to this link, consists of two scripts, both of which are capable of performing DeCSS. The version posted by the OP is the six-line version.
Always remember: When in doubt, ask the oracle.
No one I've met doing serious development is building on python, it's just too error prone.
I don't suppose you've heard of this company before?
There are dozens of others, too. I'll cite this page as a source, though it is by no means comprehensive.
All your revenue are belong to Microsoft- apparently.
Actually, as bizarre as this might sound, I think Microsoft's reasoning behind this has to do with their position regarding Intellectual Property. They don't really stand to lose anything backing a company that is selling licenses to something intangible as if it were tangible, material property. Microsoft--and most big companies concerned about IP rights--knows full well that by throwing their weight behind something that can push intangible goods closer to the boundary of "real" property, society and, eventually, the courts will side with them.
While this seems like a Good Thing (tm), I am suspicious of the software giant's motives. Microsoft certainly stands to gain a lot by having your average Joe User think of software as something synonymous with real property. Ultimately, I think that this move could have potential ramifications for software-as-speech. We all know that Microsoft really wants software to be treated like any other tangible property, and certainly something as trivial as a license seems insignificant--it might even seem like the right thing to do. A license is property, after all, but the idea is a bit bigger than that. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but it seems odd to me that Microsoft would support something like this--unless they see a strong legal benefit in the near future, particularly by set precedence...
Perhaps you need to yell at the person who invented math.
Returning to the topic at hand--I think part of the reason your commentary is examined under the scrutiny of cynicism is because it really is rather incredible that, over the course of 114 shuttle missions (IIRC), we have had only two accidents. An accident event rating of just under 2% for hoisting a large piece of equipment into orbit and returning it to Earth again is actually very good. Considering that only one accident occurred during reentry, it's even more incredible. (The Challenger incident would have been easily avoided had NASA actually followed Richard Feynman's recommendations.)
Are there problems with the shuttle program? Absolutely. But I think it's a bit unfair to make the distinctions you did earlier on.
I think he also must have failed English, inconjunction with being a crazy zealot. He clearly needs to have his exclamation points taken away from him. Unfortunately, given such zealotry, I suspect that his campaign would shift from pro-Microsoft to anti-grammatical-correctness overnight.
Did anyone else notice the excessive use of exclamation points in TFA? I am by no means a great writer, but I recall rather vividly a quote from someone (either a former instructor or someone else--enlighten me) that I will paraphrase as such: One should use exclamation points sparingly but not exceed more than two during the course of one's life. This gentleman has exceeded his exclamation quota, and I believe he needs to come in from recess. The hot weather is making him delusional.
I'd also like to thank the parent for a wonderful, step-by-step commentary on Varun's article.
What really surprises me here is the response this has received from the Slashdot readership. I've only seen a few people point out the fundamental truth behind Dvorak's flamebait, and I can state it very simply--perhaps simply enough that even Dvorak might understand.
Creative Commons is neither a replacement for nor a substitute of Copyright Law. Creative Commons, like the GPL, is a license that works separately from Copyright. For instance, Microsoft owns the Copyright to the Windows Operating Shi^H^H^HSystem, but end users are allowed to use the OS under the terms and conditions specified by the EULA--a license that limits the user's rights in addition to the limitations of Copyright. All Creative Commons does is provide licenses that afford end users more extensive rights to distribute and/or modify a work under a CC license; the Copyright is still held by the author.
Unlike some posters, I do believe Dvorak is a troll. He is deliberately misrepresenting numerous facts, all of which are easily accessible on the Internet. Then again, I might be mistaken--perhaps he isn't misrepresenting facts and is, instead, just an idiot. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a license and a Copyright. I wish more Slashdot posters would debate on these terms, too, as it proves quite simply Dvorak is a published troll.
(Slightly off-topic: I'm really beginning to wonder if the Anonymous Coward is really just reserved for Dvorak so he can post incognito.)
http://www.php.net/manual/en/security.database.sq
http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.get-magic-q
It's called tort reform (AFAIK) and nearly every nation I can think of (Australia, UK, Canada) has it, save for the United States. Being that we're a nation whose legislative processes are governed almost exclusively by the interests of lawyers, it's no wonder we'll likely never see such an animal.
It's inferior because it's an F-16 airframe with radar absorbent materials on the leading edges. At least, according to the Wikipedia article to which you linked.
The incorporation of RAM (ACs: insert lame computer-hardware related joke here) into an aircraft does not make it stealthy. Ever wondered why the F-117, B-2, and for that matter the F-22 look rather unusual? It is because shape is much more important than the coating.
Having said this, the F-16 (and derivatives) are nevertheless remarkable aircraft. I have heard that some of the more experienced F-16 pilots have been fairly consistent in out-maneuvering the F-22 in exercises. With the introduction of stealth technologies, it is a shame to see such an incredible aircraft see the end of its line. (I would've probably said this about the P-51, too.)
I love my country; I love what America stands for.
However, the direction we (speaking from a US-centric position) are going is not very wise, and so I would have to agree with you--it is true. Now, I'm probably going to be modded down for what I am about to say, but I think that a lot of it is relevant to this case. Let's review a few things that have happened in the passed year or less that is dangerous to the USA and her allies.
1) The Schiavo case. It's insignificant to most
This isn't to say that the Schiavo case is even remotely similar. However, it has certainly opened a pandora's box that I think has the potential to be very bad.
2) New London, Connecticut property seizures. While the Fifth Amendment allows government to seize property "for public use," it does not allow for private property to be seized and granted to other private property owners--not until now. In today's USA, property (read: wealth) redistribution can legally occur upwards. What this means is that wealthier entities can now seize the property of less wealthy entities and the action is sanctioned by the government. God help you if you live on ocean front property or other "prime real estate" locations.
3) Chip Salzenberg has a legal problem along similar lines. Admittedly, he shouldn't have threatened legal action against the company--big mistake--but his property was unjustly seized (IMO) based upon fraudulent claims. I would think this should be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, particularly if the company were responsible for forging documents (I don't know their side of the story, so my opinion on this is likely to change).
And now...
4) Something written, potentially in jest and very likely taken out of context, can affect the outcome of a legal battle years and years down the road? The ramifications of this are absurd--does this imply that, if an ex of mine said "I wish you'd just die" and I die ten years down the road, my parents would be able to file suit against her in a potential murder case? Come on. I realize this is incredibly out of context, but frankly, given the idiotic nature of recent rulings, I can't say as I would be surprised.
So in short, I would agree. The US has problems--big problems. Perhaps I'm overreacting, perhaps I'm reading too far into this mess, but let's be honest here. The rest of the world is scratching its head after the last week's news coming out of the USA thinking we've lost our marbles. "Seizing private property and awarding it to a company? What is WRONG with the Americans?"
It's our courts. The people can't vote on issues like this--they are decided by people who are appointed. Our legal system has its benefits, but in recent months, I'm begining to wonder if its design isn't almost entirely broken. Or may we're dragging too many decisions into the courts when they should be decided by a vote at the community level?