Either that, or note for the record that this shall be considered binding precedent for valuing the payments made to RIAA members when they win a lawsuit (i.e. if you get caught at illegal file-swapping, just FedEx them whatever crap happens to be at the back of your closet).
Er, no, more in the sense of "as soon as some criminal finds it easier to commit armed robbery with a gun rather than a knife, people will use it as a pretext for more gun control".
The basic issue is that laws directed at inanimate objects rather than at specific behavior are generally a bad idea.
That will be a major boon to those in the PC arena who don't have firewire. It was the only reason I added a firewire card to my PC... just to charge my iPod.
Huh? The Apple site lists "AC adapter" as one of the included accessories for each model.
My industry can continue to sue users, many of them kids, to establish deterrence and educate the public. But the real villains are not the kids.
I call b*llsh*t. Either the real villains are the kids -- the ones who chose to engage in each individual act of copyright infringement -- or there is no real villain at all.
This reveals the true agenda behind this sort of legislation -- to create a mechanism for enforcing their will without having to take the PR backlash.
Ok fuckstick... you change the subject and/or start calling the person names and placing personal attacks because you CAN'T argue against the facts... you dumbfuck... you commie pinko liberal asshole
Imagine if they attacked during outages or could cause outages.
They can cause outages. They know that they can cause outages, because they have already done it. All they have to do is what they intend to do anyway -- cause large-scale mayhem.
If you're talking about decompression artifacts, it sounds like a problem with your computer processing power or software (I assume you're playing DVDs via computer if the display is a 10-inch monitor) rather than a limitation of the display itself.
DVD might not be good enough on a 100" hi-res digital screen either...
Any display system for which DVD is not "good enough" (in terms of image/sound quality) isn't going to deliver much added value if it's just plunked into the corner of Joe Sixpack's living room. To get an experience that significantly improves upon existing high-end TV sets, you need a room specifically designed as a home theater. That sets a very high barrier to adoption.
The whole fucking point of this discussion is that some of us don't want lethal weaponry to be available.
Yes, and while we're making a wish list, I don't want it to rain when I have things to do outside, I don't want the grass to keep growing after my lawn gets to its proper height, and I don't want the sun to be near the horizon in the direction I'm facing.
I was talking about defending yourself with weapons that aren't designed to kill, or retreating.
The bottom-line fact is that there just isn't any nonlethal weapon that can reliably stop a reasonably tough and determined attacker (especially when the person being attacked is small and/or weak).
As for retreating, that's not a relevant consideration -- if we're talking about a situation where the use of lethal force is justified, we've already stipulated that retreat is not an option.
A hand full of people took over a few airliners and got away with it (at least their plans) because people are told the gov't will solve it. You mean to tell me a whole airliner full of people couldn't stop a couple of guys with razor-blades?
Until 11 September 2001, the rational response of a passenger on a hijacked plane was to assume that the hijackers were a bunch of clowns who wanted a free ride to Cuba. Given that assumption, the sensible thing to do is sit tight and let the authorities deal with the situation after the plane lands.
Once informed that this assumption was no longer valid, the passengers on United 93 adapted nicely to the new situation and prevented the hijackers from hitting their target (probably the Capitol or White House).
Don't throw the seminal argument away just because you take issue with their tactics.
I'm not doing that -- they are. They're the ones who chose to use tactics that cause them to forfeit the natural sympathy they would otherwise get. (I know I'd be pretty annoyed if people bootlegged my friends' recordings without permission or compensation -- but my friends aren't the sort of people who corrupt the political process to get their way.)
Would nagora write in the same manner if hundreds of thousands of people were stealing cars but the automobile industry was still doing record numbers
If the automobile industry were buying laws against do-it-yourself maintenance, initiating scattershot car-theft charges without traditional due process of law, and otherwise behaving in **AA-like fashion, then, he probably would, and most certainly should.
Hmmmm... I expect that some politician looking to burnish his "green" credentials will introduce a prohibitive tax rate on products specifically designed to degrade into trash that needs to be dumped somewhere.
You are prepared to argue that all commercial e-mail sent to you is fraud and theft?
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that all spam is theft, and most of it is fraud. The former statement is true by definition; the latter has been abundantly confirmed by experience.
Quite frankly, neither a do-not-call nor a do-not-e-mail list are the proper roles of government.
The prohibition and punishment of trespass most certainly is a proper role of government.
An argument can be made that the government is interfering with interstate commerce, prohibited by the Constitution.
WTF? The Constitution quite plainly says that Congress does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. While the definition of "interstate commerce" has been stretched absurdly in some areas of the law, the sending of spamvertisements from Joe Blow in Alabama to John Doe in New York is "interstate commerce" by any rational definition.
The simple economic fact is that spam is a very cost-effective way to market and advertise your product or business. Make it less cost-effective and it will go away on it's own. How?
The same way you make any other form of crime unprofitable -- make the punishment for getting caught multiplied by the probability of getting caught greater than the expected gain from committing it. Duh.
There are other good technical solutions that have been tried, others that haven't, and still more that haven't been developed yet
I repeat, the existence of locks and alarms is not an argument against having police and prisons. Both are part of an effective anti-crime strategy.
The legitimate role of government is the suppression of theft, fraud, and assault.
There is no contradiction whatsoever in opposing government interference with private property and free (as in speech) speech while supporting government crackdowns on spamming -- the former do not fall into any of the legitimate concerns of government; the latter alwasy fall into one (theft) and almost always into a second (fraud).
It would be much more productive to work on real technical solutions to the problem of spam, rather than whining that the government should bail us out.
There is no contradiction here, either. Yes, a prudent homeowner should install locks and other technological means to foil burglars. However, this is not a substitute for having police to arrest burglars or prisons to lock them up.
What about laws to stop real junk mail? You know, that stuff that fills your "real" mailbox? That's a far larger problem.
No, it isn't.
Paper mail advertisements do not, and will not in the future, threaten to make the postal system useless for personal communication. E-mail spam does threaten to destroy the usefulness of e-mail. The fundamental difference is that the former is a legitimate purchase of a service (the advertiser pays the postage) and the latter is a theft of service (the spammer uses trivial amounts of his own bandwidth to inject spam into the system, after which it is circulated using other people's resources).
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments reflect ignorance and failure to think through the issue, rather than being a spammer-apologist troll. (Because this exact argument is so often offered by known spammers and trolls, you will no doubt be accused of being one of them.)
But when a billion-selling company pays its taxes, then you want to be very sure they're not legit before pulling the plug or slapping them with hefty fines.
Clear Channel presumably pays its taxes, but just got slapped with a hefty fine for the "offense" of offending the Religious Reich element of the GOP. Politicians do respond to pressure, if it's kept up long enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that, or note for the record that this shall be considered binding precedent for valuing the payments made to RIAA members when they win a lawsuit (i.e. if you get caught at illegal file-swapping, just FedEx them whatever crap happens to be at the back of your closet).
The judge had to listen to the complete compendium of law and fact supporting SCO's claims, which was recorded in 1973 by Rose Mary Woods.
The basic issue is that laws directed at inanimate objects rather than at specific behavior are generally a bad idea.
Huh? The Apple site lists "AC adapter" as one of the included accessories for each model.
I call b*llsh*t. Either the real villains are the kids -- the ones who chose to engage in each individual act of copyright infringement -- or there is no real villain at all.
This reveals the true agenda behind this sort of legislation -- to create a mechanism for enforcing their will without having to take the PR backlash.
'Nuff said.
They can cause outages. They know that they can cause outages, because they have already done it. All they have to do is what they intend to do anyway -- cause large-scale mayhem.
Sheesh.
If you're talking about decompression artifacts, it sounds like a problem with your computer processing power or software (I assume you're playing DVDs via computer if the display is a 10-inch monitor) rather than a limitation of the display itself.
Any display system for which DVD is not "good enough" (in terms of image/sound quality) isn't going to deliver much added value if it's just plunked into the corner of Joe Sixpack's living room. To get an experience that significantly improves upon existing high-end TV sets, you need a room specifically designed as a home theater. That sets a very high barrier to adoption.
Er, what's the contradiction? Did Bush somehow fix the ballots so that he is also listed as the Libertarian candidate?
Yes, and while we're making a wish list, I don't want it to rain when I have things to do outside, I don't want the grass to keep growing after my lawn gets to its proper height, and I don't want the sun to be near the horizon in the direction I'm facing.
I was talking about defending yourself with weapons that aren't designed to kill, or retreating.
The bottom-line fact is that there just isn't any nonlethal weapon that can reliably stop a reasonably tough and determined attacker (especially when the person being attacked is small and/or weak).
As for retreating, that's not a relevant consideration -- if we're talking about a situation where the use of lethal force is justified, we've already stipulated that retreat is not an option.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. In some situations, killing is perfectly moral and proper.
Until 11 September 2001, the rational response of a passenger on a hijacked plane was to assume that the hijackers were a bunch of clowns who wanted a free ride to Cuba. Given that assumption, the sensible thing to do is sit tight and let the authorities deal with the situation after the plane lands.
Once informed that this assumption was no longer valid, the passengers on United 93 adapted nicely to the new situation and prevented the hijackers from hitting their target (probably the Capitol or White House).
I'm not doing that -- they are. They're the ones who chose to use tactics that cause them to forfeit the natural sympathy they would otherwise get. (I know I'd be pretty annoyed if people bootlegged my friends' recordings without permission or compensation -- but my friends aren't the sort of people who corrupt the political process to get their way.)
If the automobile industry were buying laws against do-it-yourself maintenance, initiating scattershot car-theft charges without traditional due process of law, and otherwise behaving in **AA-like fashion, then, he probably would, and most certainly should.
No, you want it to be digitally signed, which is related in some ways but not the same thing.
That's probably a bad idea -- it makes it harder to develop any of them beyond the cardboard-cutout level.
Remember how many bad guys show up in Batman and Robin or Batman Forever?
The prosecution rests.
*** DING DING DING ***
No more calls; we have a winner!
Where's a mod point when I need one?
Hmmmm... I expect that some politician looking to burnish his "green" credentials will introduce a prohibitive tax rate on products specifically designed to degrade into trash that needs to be dumped somewhere.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that all spam is theft, and most of it is fraud. The former statement is true by definition; the latter has been abundantly confirmed by experience.
Quite frankly, neither a do-not-call nor a do-not-e-mail list are the proper roles of government.
The prohibition and punishment of trespass most certainly is a proper role of government.
An argument can be made that the government is interfering with interstate commerce, prohibited by the Constitution.
WTF? The Constitution quite plainly says that Congress does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. While the definition of "interstate commerce" has been stretched absurdly in some areas of the law, the sending of spamvertisements from Joe Blow in Alabama to John Doe in New York is "interstate commerce" by any rational definition.
The simple economic fact is that spam is a very cost-effective way to market and advertise your product or business. Make it less cost-effective and it will go away on it's own. How?
The same way you make any other form of crime unprofitable -- make the punishment for getting caught multiplied by the probability of getting caught greater than the expected gain from committing it. Duh.
There are other good technical solutions that have been tried, others that haven't, and still more that haven't been developed yet
I repeat, the existence of locks and alarms is not an argument against having police and prisons. Both are part of an effective anti-crime strategy.
There is no contradiction whatsoever in opposing government interference with private property and free (as in speech) speech while supporting government crackdowns on spamming -- the former do not fall into any of the legitimate concerns of government; the latter alwasy fall into one (theft) and almost always into a second (fraud).
It would be much more productive to work on real technical solutions to the problem of spam, rather than whining that the government should bail us out.
There is no contradiction here, either. Yes, a prudent homeowner should install locks and other technological means to foil burglars. However, this is not a substitute for having police to arrest burglars or prisons to lock them up.
No, it isn't.
Paper mail advertisements do not, and will not in the future, threaten to make the postal system useless for personal communication. E-mail spam does threaten to destroy the usefulness of e-mail. The fundamental difference is that the former is a legitimate purchase of a service (the advertiser pays the postage) and the latter is a theft of service (the spammer uses trivial amounts of his own bandwidth to inject spam into the system, after which it is circulated using other people's resources).
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments reflect ignorance and failure to think through the issue, rather than being a spammer-apologist troll. (Because this exact argument is so often offered by known spammers and trolls, you will no doubt be accused of being one of them.)
Clear Channel presumably pays its taxes, but just got slapped with a hefty fine for the "offense" of offending the Religious Reich element of the GOP. Politicians do respond to pressure, if it's kept up long enough.
Sure they can -- all they have to do is not document their future patches and upgrades, and existing documentation rapidly becomes worthless.
These guys are pretty much sitting ducks for an ADA lawsuit if somebody can't play the music they bought and paid for after losing their hands....