Being well into middle age, allow me to reminisce a bit here.
Back in the late 1970s, the music industry was crying about illegal taping, and how that such piracy was cutting into their bottom line. Yet music sales zoomed to record, pardon the pun, levels in the 1980s.
Why?
Because:
(1) Disco $&%#@* (2) MTV had just came online, and back then MTV was "all music videos, all the time." (3) New artists were recording FRESH new music. (4) The audio CD had just hit the market.
Fast Forward to 2007:
(1) Disco still $&%# (2) MTV had become old hat, and MTV policy has become ","no music videos, at any time." (3) New artists are recording FRESH new music, BUT are marketing it in such a way that the RIAA and the labels that underwrite it receive little if any profit from these sales. (4) The audio CD has become old hat, and the market is shifting to to digital formats that require no physical media, and the recording industry has been slow to embrace these new formats, in complete contrast to their rush to embrace the audio CD back in the early 1980s.
The issue in Texas is NOT a legislative issue in that the Governor of Texas by his ORDER mandated the vaccination.
This is one of the issues that has the Texas Legislatures bowls in an uproar. They, correctly, consider Governor Perry as having overstepped his authority under the Texas Constitution in this matter.
For those who are not from Texas allow me to clue you in on the fact that Rick Perry is a very unpopular governor. The only reason that he is governor is because he had four opponents in the last general election that split his opposition to such a degree that Perry was able to win by a plurality.
Normally I'd support mandatory vaccinations. The thing is that the State of Texas is not going to pay for the vaccinations, the parents of the girls are. Now I can well remember the big drive to get the Sabin Polo vaccinations, this vaccination drive was not an UNfunded mandate. Indeed, the original Salk vaccination campaign was payed for my the March of Dimes.
I'm for vaccinations for cervical cancer, but if we're going to mandate such a vaccine then let's do it right, and provide the funding for the vaccination campaign.
Assuming for a moment that you are actually a physician, then I STRONGLY suggest that you work on your bedside-manner.
I would point out that the guy that represents me in the Texas Senate is a physician.
After graduating from George Mason University, Senator Deuell earned his Doctorate of Medicine from the Medical College of Virginia. Senator Deuell is a partner in Primary Care Associates of Greenville, and is a member of the American Medical Association and Texas Medical Association. He is Board certified by the American Board of Family Practice. Senator Deuell M.D. is opposed to mandatory vaccination. Now would you care to explain why he's opposed to mandatory testing given the fact that he is a very experienced physician?
All you have done by citing yourself is engage in the fallacy of of appeal to authority. I have now countered your appeal with an appeal to another, and by every measure known to me, at least equally qualified authority.
So now we're back to square one. (Paul Lynde not withstanding.)
The point of relevance here is that speed limits are based on the speed at which the majority of drivers feel comfortable driving at. By majority we're talking 85% of the drivers. This is law that is based on the behavior of the majority of drivers. What study after study has shown is that it is the speed differential between vehicles that causes an increases in traffic accidents, and not 'high' speed. The net effect is that lowering speed limits actually caused more accidents rather than reducing the number of accidents.
For many folks this is counter-intuitive and gives them a bad case of dyspepsia. The fact that many folk find it hard to grasp that 'common sense' is often just DEAD DOG WRONG has lead me to formulate the following maximum:
"Just because something isn't 'logical' doesn't mean it's not true."
Which I must admit is sort of my version of my all time favorite line from the orginal STAR TREK seires.
Stonn she is yours. After a time you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical--but it is often true.--Spock, Amok Time
Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content. That's why they are lobbying so hard for DRM. That's why none of it is compatible with everything else. Otherwise, you're still only paying for that one copy.
I have not COST them a thing. Your argument reminds me of an old chestnut of a logical problem that math, and logic professors have long loved to give freshman.
Three salesmen went into a hotel to rent a room. The manager stated that he had only one room left, but all three could use it for $30.00 for the night. The three salesmen gave him $10.00 each and went up to their room. Later, the manager decided that he had charged the salesmen too much so he called the bellhop over, gave him five one-dollar bills, and said: 'Take this $5.00 up to the salesmen and tell them I had charged them too much for the room'. On the way up, the bellhop knew that he could not divide the five one-dollar bills equally so he put two of the one-dollar bills in his pocket and returned one one-dollar bill to each of the salesmen. This means that each salesman paid $9.00 for the room. The bellhop kept $2.00. Three times nine is 27 plus two is 29....... The Question: What happened to the extra dollar?
The answer is that there is no missing dollar, the whole 'puzzle' is based on misstatement, and semantic confusion.
Your assertion "Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content." is also based on misstatement, and semantic confusion. 'They' never had the $200 to began with, so I cost them nothing. 'They' may have believed, that is to say anticipated additional revenue, but the anticipation of additional revenue is not the additional revenue itself. It is the very real and profound difference between *actual*, and *potential*.
Let us examine the 'cola wars.'
I hate Pepsi, I'm ok with Coke, but I prefer Dr Pepper. I have in recent years switched to Diet Dr Pepper, and I will drink Diet Coke if Diet DP is not available, but I'll NOT drink Diet Pepsi.
Now Coke, and Pepsi both try to make restaurants offer their soft drinks exclusively. If I go to a restaurant that offers Diet Pepsi exclusively I'll simply order water, or take my business elsewhere. Now PepsiCo is doing all that it can to insure that I buy a Pepsi product, in choosing not to buy their product am I reducing PepsiCo's *potential* profits. Yes I am, but I am in no way stealing from them. They never got MY money in the first place, therefore it's still my money, and not theirs. I have indeed thwarted their marketing scheme to increase their profits, but that does NOT in any way mean that have cost them their own dollars. I have merely retained my dollars which they had hoped to obtain.
(And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)
Your interest, or lack thereof does not effect the truth of this matter. This matter is not merely a lawyerly distinction, but rather a fundamental distinction between depravation, and non-depravation. Theft requires depravation of the lawful owner of a thing he owns. Copying in no way creates a depravation. I give you the following example:
My Father was a master aircraft mechanic. He could build some really amazing things with just a few tools. After retirement my Dad end up building several items of furniture for my Mom.
Mom would see something that she liked in one of the local furniture stores and take several pictures of it with her camera. She would have the photos developed, and then show the photos to my Dad.
He would then go to the furniture store and take between a half-dozen, and a dozen measurements of the item of furniture, and make 3 or 4 freehand sketches of said item. He would then *repair* to his shop in the backyard and construct an exact copy (at least in terms of appearance and functionality) of the afore mention item of furniture.
Did my Dad 'steal' anything in the above process? No of course not. He ****COPYED**** the item of furniture, he did NOT steal it.
Furniture stores would have gotten absolutely nowhere if that had tried to prosecute him for theft. The fact is that while I'm sure that would have not liked having an item of furniture that they had for sale copied they would have never accused my Dad of theft, and risked having a slander suit slapped on them.
My Dad did nothing wrong, nothing illegal.
Under law *copying* copyrighted material may, depending on the circumstances, be illegal, but it is NOT theft.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
"As for your little jury tirade, it's a misdirected and inaccurate rant. Jurors are empowered to decide the facts of a case; they are bound by Jury Instructions or Special Jury Instructions, which are written by lawyers and signed by judges as court orders. There are specific guiding questions in those instructions, and an impaneled jury is NOT empowered to make any quality judgments about the law not included in those instructions. To do so, or to incite others to follow suit, is then a violation of court order and an act of contempt. Jurors are not judges, and they do not get to decide whether a law is valid; they may only determine whether a defendant violated the law and if so, whether it was appropriate under the circumstances to do so."
Ever heard of John Peter Zenger?
The above quote is just flat out bunk...
There are many members of the Bar that do not like jury nullification one little bit, especially prosecutors. In reality nullification happens. It may very well gall the socks off judges, and prosecutors, but it is none the less a reality that they have to deal with.
As for being a violation of a court order I double dog, shootfire, I triple dog dare ANY judge to hold ANY juror in contempt for nullification.
The above formulae clearly illustrate the problem with the BMI. The BMI in SI units would be kg/m^2, whereas the density is kg/m^3. Further the m^2 is from only one dimension, rather than from three mutually normal dimensions. The purpose of the BMI is to determine adiposity. For this purpose it may serve as a semi-useful metric in statistical studies of a epidemiological, or actuarial nature.
However, as a diagnostic metric in a clinical setting it is worse than useless. This is due to the fact that it (the BMI) does not, in any way, measure body density. It is the body density that allows for a determination of adiposity. As density is the ratio of mass to volume then a single dimension is totally inadequate to provide even a guess as to the volume of the object in question.
Consider three men all 1.7 meters tall. A is both thin in terms of depth, and has a narrow width. B is thin in terms of depth, but broad in width. C is broad in both depth, and width. If all three are of the same average body denisty, then clearly A will have less mass than B, and B in turn will be of lower mass than C, due to the greater body volume in turn of A, B, and C.
Futher, even if A, B, and C all have the same *standing* height, depth, and breadth. The ratio of their respective sitting height to standing height may differ. The one with the larger sitting to standing hight will be the most massive, with the one with the smallest sitting to standing height ratio being the least massive.
To conclude the BMI fails to take in to account variations in in body dementions which effect the volume of a persons body where the persons body is of optimal average density.
Slashdot Mirror
A stab in the back is OK, but seeing the RIAA cleaved asunder with a battle-ax would be an absolute hoot!
STB
Let's see:
Two words: Copy, Theft.
Coping is defined as creating a new 'thing' which is identical, or nearly so, to an already existent 'thing.'
Theft is defined as the unauthorized procurement of the already existent 'thing' itself.
STB
You sir, hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head...
STB
Being well into middle age, allow me to reminisce a bit here.
Back in the late 1970s, the music industry was crying about illegal taping, and how that such piracy was cutting into their bottom line. Yet music sales zoomed to record, pardon the pun, levels in the 1980s.
Why?
Because:
(1) Disco $&%#@*
(2) MTV had just came online, and back then MTV was "all music videos, all the time."
(3) New artists were recording FRESH new music.
(4) The audio CD had just hit the market.
Fast Forward to 2007:
(1) Disco still $&%#
(2) MTV had become old hat , and MTV policy has become ","no music videos, at any time."
(3) New artists are recording FRESH new music, BUT are marketing it in such a way that the RIAA and the labels that underwrite it receive little if any profit from these sales.
(4) The audio CD has become old hat , and the market is shifting to to digital formats that require no physical media, and the recording industry has been slow to embrace these new formats, in complete contrast to their rush to embrace the audio CD back in the early 1980s.
STB
Darn it!
I never have mod points when I need them...
Pooh!
Mod this post up as insightful.
STB
In a democratic republic...
"We have rule of law, and not rule of man."
Not that this has in recent years done much to deter prosecutors in general, the FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies from trying.
STB
Ooooooh!
Giant Martian Cave Spiders....
STB
It's far worse than low...
It's imbecilic.
STB
Atheism IS religion...
One engauges in religion the moment that one gives consideration to questions, or a question of theology.
The fundmental question of theology is of course: Does God/god/gods exist.
Giving thought to the above question necessarily requires one to engage in religion.
STP
Cogito ergo sum...
I exist, though I'm not sure you do. You might be nothing more than a Turing Machine.
STB
It looks more like a tri-toaster to me...
STB
Allow me to correct you...
The issue in Texas is NOT a legislative issue in that the Governor of Texas by his ORDER mandated the vaccination.
This is one of the issues that has the Texas Legislatures bowls in an uproar. They, correctly, consider Governor Perry as having overstepped his authority under the Texas Constitution in this matter.
For those who are not from Texas allow me to clue you in on the fact that Rick Perry is a very unpopular governor. The only reason that he is governor is because he had four opponents in the last general election that split his opposition to such a degree that Perry was able to win by a plurality.
Normally I'd support mandatory vaccinations. The thing is that the State of Texas is not going to pay for the vaccinations, the parents of the girls are. Now I can well remember the big drive to get the Sabin Polo vaccinations, this vaccination drive was not an UNfunded mandate. Indeed, the original Salk vaccination campaign was payed for my the March of Dimes.
I'm for vaccinations for cervical cancer, but if we're going to mandate such a vaccine then let's do it right, and provide the funding for the vaccination campaign.
I would point out that the guy that represents me in the Texas Senate is a physician. After graduating from George Mason University, Senator Deuell earned his Doctorate of Medicine from the Medical College of Virginia. Senator Deuell is a partner in Primary Care Associates of Greenville, and is a member of the American Medical Association and Texas Medical Association. He is Board certified by the American Board of Family Practice. Senator Deuell M.D. is opposed to mandatory vaccination. Now would you care to explain why he's opposed to mandatory testing given the fact that he is a very experienced physician?
All you have done by citing yourself is engage in the fallacy of of appeal to authority. I have now countered your appeal with an appeal to another, and by every measure known to me, at least equally qualified authority.
So now we're back to square one. (Paul Lynde not withstanding.)
STB
It's not that we didn't catch it, it's just that we were unimpressed.
STB
"People sould not fear their governments, governments should fear their people."
The intersection (pun intended) of traffic engineering, traffic law, and public perception is a pet interest of mine.
What the vast majority of the public does not understand is that speed limits in the U.S. are based on something know as the 85th percentile speed.
I reference the following sources:
Establishing Realistic Speed Limits Published by The Office of Highway Safety Planning State of Michigan.
http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/workgroups/tsewg/Esta
What You Should Know About: How Speed Limits Are Set Published by The City of Lewisville, Texas
http://www.cityoflewisville.com/comdev/brochur3.p
Speed Limit Brochure
AND
Procedures For Establishing Speed Zones
Both Published by The Texas Department of Transportation
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pio/casb
The point of relevance here is that speed limits are based on the speed at which the majority of drivers feel comfortable driving at. By majority we're talking 85% of the drivers. This is law that is based on the behavior of the majority of drivers. What study after study has shown is that it is the speed differential between vehicles that causes an increases in traffic accidents, and not 'high' speed. The net effect is that lowering speed limits actually caused more accidents rather than reducing the number of accidents.
For many folks this is counter-intuitive and gives them a bad case of dyspepsia. The fact that many folk find it hard to grasp that 'common sense' is often just DEAD DOG WRONG has lead me to formulate the following maximum:
"Just because something isn't 'logical' doesn't mean it's not true."
Which I must admit is sort of my version of my all time favorite line from the orginal STAR TREK seires.
STB
Define: Define
STB
Indeed.
STB
I have not COST them a thing. Your argument reminds me of an old chestnut of a logical problem that math, and logic professors have long loved to give freshman.
The answer is that there is no missing dollar, the whole 'puzzle' is based on misstatement, and semantic confusion.
Your assertion "Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content." is also based on misstatement, and semantic confusion. 'They' never had the $200 to began with, so I cost them nothing. 'They' may have believed, that is to say anticipated additional revenue, but the anticipation of additional revenue is not the additional revenue itself. It is the very real and profound difference between *actual*, and *potential*.
Let us examine the 'cola wars.'
I hate Pepsi, I'm ok with Coke, but I prefer Dr Pepper. I have in recent years switched to Diet Dr Pepper, and I will drink Diet Coke if Diet DP is not available, but I'll NOT drink Diet Pepsi.
Now Coke, and Pepsi both try to make restaurants offer their soft drinks exclusively. If I go to a restaurant that offers Diet Pepsi exclusively I'll simply order water, or take my business elsewhere. Now PepsiCo is doing all that it can to insure that I buy a Pepsi product, in choosing not to buy their product am I reducing PepsiCo's *potential* profits. Yes I am, but I am in no way stealing from them. They never got MY money in the first place, therefore it's still my money, and not theirs. I have indeed thwarted their marketing scheme to increase their profits, but that does NOT in any way mean that have cost them their own dollars. I have merely retained my dollars which they had hoped to obtain.
STB
Your interest, or lack thereof does not effect the truth of this matter. This matter is not merely a lawyerly distinction, but rather a fundamental distinction between depravation, and non-depravation. Theft requires depravation of the lawful owner of a thing he owns. Copying in no way creates a depravation. I give you the following example:
My Father was a master aircraft mechanic. He could build some really amazing things with just a few tools. After retirement my Dad end up building several items of furniture for my Mom.
Mom would see something that she liked in one of the local furniture stores and take several pictures of it with her camera. She would have the photos developed, and then show the photos to my Dad.
He would then go to the furniture store and take between a half-dozen, and a dozen measurements of the item of furniture, and make 3 or 4 freehand sketches of said item. He would then *repair* to his shop in the backyard and construct an exact copy (at least in terms of appearance and functionality) of the afore mention item of furniture.
Did my Dad 'steal' anything in the above process?
No of course not. He ****COPYED**** the item of furniture, he did NOT steal it.
Furniture stores would have gotten absolutely nowhere if that had tried to prosecute him for theft. The fact is that while I'm sure that would have not liked having an item of furniture that they had for sale copied they would have never accused my Dad of theft, and risked having a slander suit slapped on them.
My Dad did nothing wrong, nothing illegal.
Under law *copying* copyrighted material may, depending on the circumstances, be illegal, but it is NOT theft.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
STB
"As for your little jury tirade, it's a misdirected and inaccurate rant. Jurors are empowered to decide the facts of a case; they are bound by Jury Instructions or Special Jury Instructions, which are written by lawyers and signed by judges as court orders. There are specific guiding questions in those instructions, and an impaneled jury is NOT empowered to make any quality judgments about the law not included in those instructions. To do so, or to incite others to follow suit, is then a violation of court order and an act of contempt. Jurors are not judges, and they do not get to decide whether a law is valid; they may only determine whether a defendant violated the law and if so, whether it was appropriate under the circumstances to do so."
Ever heard of John Peter Zenger?
The above quote is just flat out bunk...
There are many members of the Bar that do not like jury nullification one little bit, especially prosecutors. In reality nullification happens. It may very well gall the socks off judges, and prosecutors, but it is none the less a reality that they have to deal with.
As for being a violation of a court order I double dog, shootfire, I triple dog dare ANY judge to hold ANY juror in contempt for nullification.
STB
"The Corps wants people who can perform, not necessarily fit a chart made back in the 30's by Naval doctors."
ROTFLMKO!
STP
The BMI: Body Mass Index = m/h^2.
Density: p = M/V
The above formulae clearly illustrate the problem with the BMI. The BMI in SI units would be kg/m^2, whereas the density is kg/m^3. Further the m^2 is from only one dimension, rather than from three mutually normal dimensions. The purpose of the BMI is to determine adiposity. For this purpose it may serve as a semi-useful metric in statistical studies of a epidemiological, or actuarial nature.
However, as a diagnostic metric in a clinical setting it is worse than useless. This is due to the fact that it (the BMI) does not, in any way, measure body density. It is the body density that allows for a determination of adiposity. As density is the ratio of mass to volume then a single dimension is totally inadequate to provide even a guess as to the volume of the object in question.
Consider three men all 1.7 meters tall. A is both thin in terms of depth, and has a narrow width. B is thin in terms of depth, but broad in width. C is broad in both depth, and width. If all three are of the same average body denisty, then clearly A will have less mass than B, and B in turn will be of lower mass than C, due to the greater body volume in turn of A, B, and C.
Futher, even if A, B, and C all have the same *standing* height, depth, and breadth. The ratio of their respective sitting height to standing height may differ. The one with the larger sitting to standing hight will be the most massive, with the one with the smallest sitting to standing height ratio being the least massive.
To conclude the BMI fails to take in to account variations in in body dementions which effect the volume of a persons body where the persons body is of optimal average density.
RIAA SOP,
make accusations
fail to provide solid evidence
hope pure intimidation works.
Profit?
STB
"Liv Tyler is ugly."
Get thee to an opthamologist!
STB