At what point do you arrest 'em? When they enter the country, or when they walk onto the target plane? somewhere between? ISTM that *some* level of positive action should be a requirement, because otherwise the line gets moved downward, and now we have nonsense like "no water bottles on board" because OMG we're all potential terrorists.
If someone puts together a bomb, drives to the target, has second thoughts, and goes home without doing anything, is that a crime? should it be??
=======
I recall reading an article about Soviet sleeper agents in the U.S., who had been here for years or even decades, and when called upon to act for their Red masters, found all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do so today, or tomorrow, or the next day... life here had become too pleasant, why upset matters? So... should we have arrested those spies when they first crossed the border?
You can get SATA to/from IDE adapters -- look for 'em cheap at cablenbits.com and tekgems.com (I've dealt happily with both companies).
But I don't know how well the adapters work, and I can tell you finding a PCI SATA adapter that handles over 400GB, and doesn't cost more than a new motherboard, is tough to do!!
About refurbs for warranty replacement -- W.D. does that now too. (Or did, last time I had to RMA a drive -- in 2002. The refurb replacement has been running ever since.)
Presumably they've all gone to this policy because they've learned that most RMA'd drives are not actually defective -- in fact Seagate found that was the case 70% of the time!!
[Indeed, there was a huge rash of "bad" HDs when 40GB came out -- because they were typically formatted as One Big Partition, and FAT32 has a data wrapping bug that can eat data if the partition is larger than 32GB. You can see the problem!!]
That said, IMO if it's bad right away, or dies within an unreasonably short period of use, it's not fair to replace it with a refurb, if only because you just paid for a new drive.
The problem with "conspiracy to commit" is that the PTB can draw the line anywhere they want; indeed, that has been a problem in some parts of the world in the past. As the gov't becomes more paranoid, that line gets closer and closer to the point where disgruntled workers don't dare grouse about it over a beer.
But if you're arrested for PLANNING something... that is thoughtcrime, and remains thoughtcrime until you actually ACT on your thoughts.
How many people here have fantacized some personal enemy's spectacular demise? How many of you, as teenagers, wrote about how you would do away with your enemies at school? How many went so far as to load a gun, cool down a bit, and unload it again?? This isn't rare behaviour; it's not-unusual expression of typical teenage angst.
But now every distressed teen is a criminal, merely for having evil thoughts. Best start brainwashing 'em in the cradle, it's the only way to prevent 'em from growing up to be teenage anarchists.
Upon Reading TFA, I found myself thinking of realworld examples of how neurotic (or even psychotic) leaders sometimes acquire power despite going against everything any normal and rational person would support. The first one that leapt to mind was Idi Amin. Stalin, Hitler, and many others qualify as "neurotic winners" who reached power despite everyone else's better sense.
It seems to me that there is already a solid standard of penalties in that area -- frex, the usual penalty for writing a bad check is 3x the value of the check. Once to cover the lost value, once for recovery expenses, and once as a "don't do that again, stupid" penalty.
Why should copyright infringement be so radically penalized, especially when it's incidental or casual infringement of this sort, akin to shoplifting?
And as to someone punching out CDs in their basement and selling 'em on the black market, don't we already have standardized penalties covering counterfeit goods? Shouldn't even that sort of wholesale "piracy" be treated exactly as for any counterfeit goods, rather than deserving a whole new set of draconian penalties?
Or is that why those pirates are not pursued with the same glee -- because they won't make nearly as spectalar an example to frighten ordinary people with??
Is he obligated to do so only for the duration of that trial, or does the obligation extend to after the judgment of the court is made and the case is closed?
Occurs to me that a fitting punishment would be to fine the offending shysters an amount in keeping with the amount the court had found against the defendant, in likewise proportionate harm. So... given that the $220k judgment is about 100x the actual harm to the plaintiff, I'd say 100 times $220k would be a fitting and reasonable fine to ding the RIAA's shysters with. A $20M fine ought to be enough to discourage any shennanigans for a while, eh?
Some dogs are really good at it, tho some are not. Cats, as a group, are quite poor at it. Birds seem to be more into pattern recognition overall, which is probably why they're good at it.
There used to be 6 crows living at my place (out in the desert, I'm the only source of water for miles around). No trouble, didn't do anything bad, could always be seen within a mile or so of my house.
One day along came 6 ravens who ran the crows out. For the next year or so the crows hung around at the boundary of what the ravens had claimed, looking decidely forlorn (and probably thirsty too). Meanwhile, the ravens made themselves unwelcome by destroying most of my flowers, which the crows had never done. (Fortunately for them, ravens are protected, tho crows are not. WTF??)
Then the ravens moved on, and the crows came back. Some have since died and I'm down to just two, and now they stick pretty close to the house and kennel (they seem to enjoy watching the dogs), much more so than they did before. BTW they are now at least 5 years old, and have never raised any chicks, tho one year they did make a big sloppy nest.
My sister's parrot is pretty creative with what little language he knows. If you call out for a person he knows, he will answer in that person's voice (then you have to go check if the person or the parrot answered you).
He is jealous of their dog. He calls the dog, "Jaz, come!", then tells him "Jaz, sit" and after the dog obligingly does so, the parrot yells "BAD DOG!"
I once had a Lab pup that would watch TV, but only certain shows. She liked football, and Max Headroom, and would watch both all the way through. She never paid any attention to the TV otherwise.
I suspect tool making and use is more widespread than is generally realised -- if only because it is not always *recognised* for what it is, perhaps because of the manipulation limitations imposed by various species' structure.
Case in point: My sister's Labrador loved chocolate, but reacted badly to it (mainly by barfing it all over their white living-room rug)... he could also find it no matter where or how well you hid it. But the cupboard above the fridge ought to be out of a dog's reach, right? Hell, it was out of convenient human reach!
Well, this dog didn't jump, but he would climb... he moved a kitchen chair clear across the room and next to the counter, climbed from chair to counter to the top of the fridge, and had his way with the chocolate. (And then barfed it all over their white rug.)
So... does recognising that if he moved the chair, he could use the chair as a ladder, count as "tool use" ??
"The only people who "won" in this case was the RIAA lawyers themselves, and not their "clients" for whom they were supposedly representing."
That's a good point -- how much of this is egged on by the very lawyers representing the RIAA interests?? would these lawsuits continue if some shyster didn't make it sound like the best way to enforce copyrights?
Especially when you realise that Hollywood and the music industry are for the most part very liberal, and very pro-Democract. I suspect this has its roots in the mob-controlled unions, which ruled Hollywood for a very long time.
That's a good policy. I know I'd be a lot more willing to be in the jury pool if I knew I was only stuck with it for one day, not for some indefinite period (and maybe waste several days in the selection process on top of that).
As it is, tho I think it's an honourable duty, the way it's handled is more often as onerous as if you the (potential) juror are the ones being punished!
As it happens, they never want me anyway, because my business partner's brother is a lawyer and municipal judge, and a friend's dad is a lawyer. That puts me right out immediately; gods forbid that a juror should actually know [where to learn] about the law!!
Yep, the punishment is all out of proportion to the offense (I won't call it a "crime"). Kinda reminds me of the draconian punishments of the past... chopping off a hand for stealing a piece of bread in the marketplace (ie. for shoplifting), being stoned to death for adultery (including any consensual sex outside of the legal definition of marriage), etc, etc.
In a world without copyright, LittleGuy has every right to take and use EvilCorp's code TOO. LittleGuy can reverse-engineer it, extend it, release it closed source, and give EvilCorp the finger because they likewise have no claim of ownership over it.
Slashdot Mirror
At what point do you arrest 'em? When they enter the country, or when they walk onto the target plane? somewhere between? ISTM that *some* level of positive action should be a requirement, because otherwise the line gets moved downward, and now we have nonsense like "no water bottles on board" because OMG we're all potential terrorists.
... life here had become too pleasant, why upset matters? So... should we have arrested those spies when they first crossed the border?
If someone puts together a bomb, drives to the target, has second thoughts, and goes home without doing anything, is that a crime? should it be??
=======
I recall reading an article about Soviet sleeper agents in the U.S., who had been here for years or even decades, and when called upon to act for their Red masters, found all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do so today, or tomorrow, or the next day
You can get SATA to/from IDE adapters -- look for 'em cheap at cablenbits.com and tekgems.com (I've dealt happily with both companies).
But I don't know how well the adapters work, and I can tell you finding a PCI SATA adapter that handles over 400GB, and doesn't cost more than a new motherboard, is tough to do!!
About refurbs for warranty replacement -- W.D. does that now too. (Or did, last time I had to RMA a drive -- in 2002. The refurb replacement has been running ever since.)
Presumably they've all gone to this policy because they've learned that most RMA'd drives are not actually defective -- in fact Seagate found that was the case 70% of the time!!
[Indeed, there was a huge rash of "bad" HDs when 40GB came out -- because they were typically formatted as One Big Partition, and FAT32 has a data wrapping bug that can eat data if the partition is larger than 32GB. You can see the problem!!]
That said, IMO if it's bad right away, or dies within an unreasonably short period of use, it's not fair to replace it with a refurb, if only because you just paid for a new drive.
Better not tell my yonder XP box, then. Its HDs have been asleep all day, the lazy things.
But I turn off indexing service, which doubtless makes a big difference.
I've gotten that too... frankly I don't think "overrated" should override your default score. Oh well! I yak enough here that it all evens out.
And now to find something that will *play* TFLink...!!
The problem with "conspiracy to commit" is that the PTB can draw the line anywhere they want; indeed, that has been a problem in some parts of the world in the past. As the gov't becomes more paranoid, that line gets closer and closer to the point where disgruntled workers don't dare grouse about it over a beer.
But if you're arrested for PLANNING something... that is thoughtcrime, and remains thoughtcrime until you actually ACT on your thoughts.
How many people here have fantacized some personal enemy's spectacular demise? How many of you, as teenagers, wrote about how you would do away with your enemies at school? How many went so far as to load a gun, cool down a bit, and unload it again?? This isn't rare behaviour; it's not-unusual expression of typical teenage angst.
But now every distressed teen is a criminal, merely for having evil thoughts. Best start brainwashing 'em in the cradle, it's the only way to prevent 'em from growing up to be teenage anarchists.
Anonymous Brave Guy: "As the current administration has so capably demonstrated, it has no qualms about going after anyone."
SuperKendall: "They obviously have not gone after you. You are living counterevidence to your own point."
Maybe Anonymous Brave Guy just runs really fast.
So if I possess a Bible, does that mean I might intend to rain fire and brimstone on Whitehall??
Upon Reading TFA, I found myself thinking of realworld examples of how neurotic (or even psychotic) leaders sometimes acquire power despite going against everything any normal and rational person would support. The first one that leapt to mind was Idi Amin. Stalin, Hitler, and many others qualify as "neurotic winners" who reached power despite everyone else's better sense.
It seems to me that there is already a solid standard of penalties in that area -- frex, the usual penalty for writing a bad check is 3x the value of the check. Once to cover the lost value, once for recovery expenses, and once as a "don't do that again, stupid" penalty.
Why should copyright infringement be so radically penalized, especially when it's incidental or casual infringement of this sort, akin to shoplifting?
And as to someone punching out CDs in their basement and selling 'em on the black market, don't we already have standardized penalties covering counterfeit goods? Shouldn't even that sort of wholesale "piracy" be treated exactly as for any counterfeit goods, rather than deserving a whole new set of draconian penalties?
Or is that why those pirates are not pursued with the same glee -- because they won't make nearly as spectalar an example to frighten ordinary people with??
Is he obligated to do so only for the duration of that trial, or does the obligation extend to after the judgment of the court is made and the case is closed?
Occurs to me that a fitting punishment would be to fine the offending shysters an amount in keeping with the amount the court had found against the defendant, in likewise proportionate harm. So ... given that the $220k judgment is about 100x the actual harm to the plaintiff, I'd say 100 times $220k would be a fitting and reasonable fine to ding the RIAA's shysters with. A $20M fine ought to be enough to discourage any shennanigans for a while, eh?
My problem was I couldn't see the link anywhere. Thanks! (Is there another link I should try?)
Some dogs are really good at it, tho some are not. Cats, as a group, are quite poor at it. Birds seem to be more into pattern recognition overall, which is probably why they're good at it.
There used to be 6 crows living at my place (out in the desert, I'm the only source of water for miles around). No trouble, didn't do anything bad, could always be seen within a mile or so of my house.
One day along came 6 ravens who ran the crows out. For the next year or so the crows hung around at the boundary of what the ravens had claimed, looking decidely forlorn (and probably thirsty too). Meanwhile, the ravens made themselves unwelcome by destroying most of my flowers, which the crows had never done. (Fortunately for them, ravens are protected, tho crows are not. WTF??)
Then the ravens moved on, and the crows came back. Some have since died and I'm down to just two, and now they stick pretty close to the house and kennel (they seem to enjoy watching the dogs), much more so than they did before. BTW they are now at least 5 years old, and have never raised any chicks, tho one year they did make a big sloppy nest.
My sister's parrot is pretty creative with what little language he knows. If you call out for a person he knows, he will answer in that person's voice (then you have to go check if the person or the parrot answered you).
He is jealous of their dog. He calls the dog, "Jaz, come!", then tells him "Jaz, sit" and after the dog obligingly does so, the parrot yells "BAD DOG!"
I once had a Lab pup that would watch TV, but only certain shows. She liked football, and Max Headroom, and would watch both all the way through. She never paid any attention to the TV otherwise.
I suspect tool making and use is more widespread than is generally realised -- if only because it is not always *recognised* for what it is, perhaps because of the manipulation limitations imposed by various species' structure.
... he could also find it no matter where or how well you hid it. But the cupboard above the fridge ought to be out of a dog's reach, right? Hell, it was out of convenient human reach!
Case in point: My sister's Labrador loved chocolate, but reacted badly to it (mainly by barfing it all over their white living-room rug)
Well, this dog didn't jump, but he would climb... he moved a kitchen chair clear across the room and next to the counter, climbed from chair to counter to the top of the fridge, and had his way with the chocolate. (And then barfed it all over their white rug.)
So... does recognising that if he moved the chair, he could use the chair as a ladder, count as "tool use" ??
"The only people who "won" in this case was the RIAA lawyers themselves, and not their "clients" for whom they were supposedly representing."
That's a good point -- how much of this is egged on by the very lawyers representing the RIAA interests?? would these lawsuits continue if some shyster didn't make it sound like the best way to enforce copyrights?
Especially when you realise that Hollywood and the music industry are for the most part very liberal, and very pro-Democract. I suspect this has its roots in the mob-controlled unions, which ruled Hollywood for a very long time.
That's a good policy. I know I'd be a lot more willing to be in the jury pool if I knew I was only stuck with it for one day, not for some indefinite period (and maybe waste several days in the selection process on top of that).
As it is, tho I think it's an honourable duty, the way it's handled is more often as onerous as if you the (potential) juror are the ones being punished!
As it happens, they never want me anyway, because my business partner's brother is a lawyer and municipal judge, and a friend's dad is a lawyer. That puts me right out immediately; gods forbid that a juror should actually know [where to learn] about the law!!
Yep, the punishment is all out of proportion to the offense (I won't call it a "crime"). Kinda reminds me of the draconian punishments of the past... chopping off a hand for stealing a piece of bread in the marketplace (ie. for shoplifting), being stoned to death for adultery (including any consensual sex outside of the legal definition of marriage), etc, etc.
In a world without copyright, LittleGuy has every right to take and use EvilCorp's code TOO. LittleGuy can reverse-engineer it, extend it, release it closed source, and give EvilCorp the finger because they likewise have no claim of ownership over it.
Someone lacking scientific lingo, substituting "produces" for "cultures".