Any consideration that their heightened state of agitation before playing might have been caused by having to take the stupid test instead of logging in?
...Car thieves have declared the police have no legal authority to prevent them from stealing cars.
Good luck with that.
I don't really understand what Comcast hopes to get out of such an "above the law" argument. It's just bound to piss off the FCC regulators even more and make them more committed to enforcing whatever decision they make against Comcast. Just to show all the other cable companies and telcos that they aren't to be messed with.
except when we run out of IP addresses, there wont be any new globally accessible servers. when we run out of oil, it wont matter how many IP addresses we have, because the modern world will completely collapse.
Same thing with climate change, the human race has taken no decisive steps towards curbing greenhouse gases. Despite the dire warnings of leading scientists over many years, despite modeling the greenhouse buildup's future effects, and despite a pretty universal feeling that everything is getting pretty f-ed up. I get the sense that we'll start doing something to address the problem right about when the Atlantic Ocean floods over Manhattan island. Of course, millions or billions of people will already be dead at that point.
But eventually solutions will come along.
What ICANN is doing here is actually something incredible laudable. They are actually taking positive steps to address (no pun intended) a future problem in a systematic way. I am sure in 2011 when IPv4 is getting close to used up, there will be a couple people frantically switching over to IPv6, but because IPv6 will have been around for so long, most people will have adopted it long before it ever becomes a problem.
you get a pop-up every time you run an application on your computer and that's ok with you? Does it make you feel safer to know that even though you are running an application you have run a hundred times before, Windows is still going to ask you if you "Are sure you want to do that? It could be unsafe!"
Do you find that you read the warnings or do you just click OK as soon as you see them (thus rendering the warnings pointless)?
UAC is a joke. And so are many of the other strange "security" measures they have taken (Disabling and HIDING the Administrator account? Making Program Files & ProgramData protected, read-only folders?)
This is definitely old news. The edits happened in 2005, the article completely blows it out of proportion (the URL is "bush censors wikipedia" which is pretty ridiculous), and anyone who's been paying attention already knows that Congress-critters and their staffers love to edit wikipedia.
So kudos to you for pointing that out.
However, then you run off on a rambling and weird digression and into some random defense of the Iraq-war hawks.
You make a sound argument in trying to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda, except that you overlook the fact that outside of the western world, Al Qaeda is (and has long been) quite popular. So, yes, there may have been some limited contacts between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, but as far as anyone can tell they were never substantial. Nor were they ever of the same scale as support from other countries that we currently count as allies in the Farce on Terror.
As far as the cruise-missile attack you referenced, I don't things are as cut-and-dry as you present them. Here's the wikipedia article on the bombing of al-Shifa. (I know the wikipedia isn't the strongest source ever, but this pretty much jives with what I remember from the news at the time.) There may have been some Al-Qaeda influence, and they may have been using the plant as cover for a nerve gas experiment, but almost 10 years later there's no evidence for either of those things. And there's absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was in any way involved.
So, yes. The intelligence services were concerned about Al Qaeda even before Bush took office. They thought there may be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But saying that without also saying that we had far more intelligence linking Al-Qaeda to countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is disingenuous. It's a lie by omission. Especially in the case of elected officials using classified information to build public support for a war of aggression.
Now, let's address this NIE thing. The reason why the new NIE on Iran has been so well received is that it fits well with what the rest of the world has been saying about Iran. You may remember the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bushies were saying that Iraq was "this close" to a nuclear bomb and that they had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (WMDs! WMDs!) Meanwhile, everyone else (including people who would know) was saying the exact opposite. We ignored the nay-sayers (that is, pretty much the whole world) and trusted our intelligence services and our leaders and we got exactly what we deserved (an unending war of occupation, costing countless Iraqi, American, and "coalition" lives, not to mention mortgaging the USA to the hilt).
Is a nuclear Iran a threat? Maybe. But it's a huge leap of faith to go from "we have no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program" to "If Iran had nuclear weapons they could be dangerous" to "we need to start a preemptive war with Iran". Which is exactly what the Bush administration did in the case of Iraq. The difference in this new NIE, as far as I can tell, is that the people who put it together took explicit measures to prevent the administration from making that cognitive leap again.
For that matter, what the hell does "prioritizing resources and organization" mean? How does one prioritize organization?
Why not call it the "Bill for the Creation of a Department of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement". No acronym required!
The funny thing is, this isn't like the PATRIOT act or the Protect America Act where they're dressing up a repugnant law to look pretty for the ignorant masses. They're not trying to fool anyone by naming it the PRO-IP law.
It is a law designed to protect current IP holders' hegemonic right to profits forever. If you don't like that idea, you're not going to be lambasted in the press for not being PRO-IP. (You're going to be lambasted in the press for being a communist hippy with no idea how the world works, but that's a different issue.)
It's time for a new law the "Name Bills For What They Do, You Jerks" act of 2008 or NBFWTDYJ if you prefer.
from the Rep Conyers' "justification" site (and the department of made up numbers)
The bipartisan PRO IP bill is supported by both labor unions and industry groups because of the increasing global economic cost of counterfeiting and piracy - which is currently between $500 and $600 billion/year in lost sales and approximately 5% - 7% of global trade. It costs the United States between $200 and $250 billion/year in lost sales, including 750,000 jobs.
These numbers are completely ridiculous. Estimated costs in dollars are always nebulous and hard to disprove, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify the 750K jobs number.
Considering that the movie studios & music business seem to be doing just fine despite these "increasing global economic costs" I find it hard to believe they're going to be hiring 3-quarters of a million more people to do the exact same amount of work they're already doing.
The only jobs this bill is going to create are the Intellectual Property police that staff this new agency. And since they're going to be funded through seizures of private property, it's hard to see how that will act as anything but a leech on the economy.
The fact that their environmental records are impossible to determine should not be considered a defense.
I am a consumer of consoles and games. I am also gravely concerned about the environment. In an ideal world, I would favor (e.g. buy more of the products of) only manufacturers that use the most environmentally-sound practices. However, today, there's no easy way for me to tell if Nintendo is "greener" than Microsoft or Sony. And since I cannot tell, I cannot base my purchasing decisions on it, and there's no incentive (from the demand side anyway) for Nintendo, Microsoft or anyone else to spend extra money to use less fossil fuels/harmful chemicals/baby seals in their products.
Reports like this one from Greenpeace are a first step in getting these companies to be more transparent regarding the true environmental cost of their manufacturing processes. If that information became as ubiquitous as privacy policies it would lead to an arms-race among manufacturers to see who could implement the greenest practices.
So before you damn Greenpeace for taking your favorite console maker to task, consider the broader picture of what they're trying to accomplish.
I am going to guess that you have a couple dozen extensions installed on firefox and most of them you don't ever use (or even think about). Get rid of the extensions you're not actively using and see if that helps both the memory and speed problems you're seeing.
touch-typing works because you can feel where your hands are over the keyboard. You can feel when a key has been pressed. Without that tactile feedback, you cannot touch type, and (surprise!) you wont be able to improve your typing speed/accuracy. (You will always be hunting and pecking on the iPhone.)
The apple people knew that, and they made a conscious decision to sacrifice typing speed for screen real-estate.
you have pointed out that if something unexpected happens on the road the chances of your having an accident go up. brilliant.
and if the driver is paying perfect attention and reacts perfectly, the accident might be avoided. to this end, talking on a cell-phone may prevent the driver from reacting correctly.
However, the same could be said for listening to the radio, talking to another passenger in the car, looking at the beautiful foliage, day-dreaming about that girl from accounts-receivable, looking in your rear-view mirrors, or any of the other countless things we do to break up the mind-achingly dull monotony of driving.
The things Verizon and Sprint have patents on, AT&T has patents on. All big telcos have thousands of patents covering every aspect of the telephone industry. And now with the loss in the Verizon case and a settlement in the Sprint case, it's clear that Vonage is incapable of defending their business model. It's time (and perhaps past time) for anyone with a patent claim to get in on the game.
Vonage is no longer a viable company. They are just a lump of cash, hemorrhaging out to anyone who looks at them crossly. Right now the game is for the tens/hundreds of millions of dollars Vonage has in cash. But that's just the appetizer; the real prize is the millions of Vonage customers who can be converted over to a "Triple Play" package.
OK, calm down. Unless you are one of the authors of this book I never heard of before or the aide they interviewed or Hillary Clinton, neither of us knows anything about this situation. I don't know who it was, it could have been anybody. Martians! Elvis! Bigfoot! But odds are it was probably just some guy loosely associated with the DNC. But I don't know. In fact, we don't even know that this tape exists. We just have the word of an unnamed ex-Clinton aide in a book nobody cares about (which doesn't mean that it isn't true, just that there's no corroboration).
Here's what I do know for certain. The Bush administration authorized the spy agencies to eavesdrop on communications of US citizens without first attaining a warrant even though this was in clear violation of existing laws (specifically the FISA law). His administration also, it appears, made the telecommunications industry an accomplice to this illegal action and is now trying to prevent investigation by claiming that anything it does that's illegal is a state secret.
Maybe there's a justification for that, although I haven't heard anything to justify it yet. But whatever Bush was thinking when he did it is less important than the fact that the laws of our nation as passed by Congress should be inviolable. When one man can willfully (and secretly) invalidate those laws without reprisal or repudiation, the fact that we have laws begins to lose meaning.
Now, I guess you think this allegation that Clinton listened to a tape provided by "Bill's supporters" (see below) is comparable. I disagree. The actions of these supporters are clearly criminal and listening to the tape they provided might be some sort of misdemeanor (though I doubt it, IANAL). However, Bush's actions smack of a constitutional crisis, of the executive branch of government running roughshod over separation of powers and becoming the one and only actor on the national stage. The president, in time of war or time of peace, must still abide by the laws passed by Congress.
--
ps. I actually misread the article, as I thought it said the aides made the tape. What it actually says is...
"The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill," Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton. "Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."
and
Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing.
So, an aide didn't make the tape. Unspecified "supporters" of Bill Clinton made the tape and then delivered it to the Clinton campaign. It's very possible these were just over-eager partisans taking advantage of the growing ubiquity of cell-phones and the ease of intercepting to due what they considered their patriotic duty. But,
I mean, obviously you're trolling, but I will reply. First, in the linked article it is alleged that Hillary Clinton listened to taped conversations picked up by her aides who were monitoring open cell phone communications. That's most likely illegal and so it would be the police, not Congress, who would need to investigate. Not sure what the statute of limitations is on such a crime, but I would imagine it's less than 15 years.
So Bush did not have warrants, neither did Clinton why does the congress not investigate every presidency back to Nixon?
If the story is to be believed, the aides in question were not part of the federal government's spy agencies. There's quite a bit of difference between two dorks recording whatever cell communications float into range of their receiver and the CIA/FBI/NSA strong-arming the phone companies to let them listen in on every call, text-message, email, chat, etc... that happens in America.
Also, keep in mind that beyond whether the Bush administrations actions were legal, Congress is currently drafting a law which will delimit the scope and breadth of the CIA/NSA/FBI's powers to spy on communication that travels through American telephone providers. In order to make a sensible law, they need a full understanding of what wiretapping has occurred, what results it has achieved, and how the existing laws have been interpreted by the current agencies.
Our lawyers are pretty sure we broke the law and complied with an illegal order. But they're also pretty sure that Congress doesn't have the balls to confront the White House about this. So, complain all you want, but we'll being skiing in hell before we testify before Congress about this.
It would be sort of like arguing that just because you stole something doesn't mean you're liable to replace the seller with the selling price or give the item back. You can argue there that nobody would have bought it either, but it's not very relevent.
Say I stole a painting of your great grandmother (valuable to you, street value $25 for the frame). In my defense, I think it kinda resembles my great-grandmother which is why I took it. You sue me in small-claims and I lose. I would compensate you by either A) returning the painting or B) giving you some money to make up for the lost value (in the range of $20) or possibly both.
A penalty equivalent to the crime. Pretty simple and something we can all agree on.
But how does that apply that to this case? There was no loss of property or the utility of the property. So, while she is guilty of copyright infringement, her penalty under something that would resemble common-law would be "delete the music from your computer and stop doing it!" No financial liability since their was no financial loss to the record company.
However, in the United States of RIAA, the question of what losses the record company incurred is irrelevant. She violated copyright on a handful of lousy songs, her penalty is to pay $200,000?! How is that equitable?
This would be like if I took a picture of the painting of your great grandmother and used it on a flier for my garage sale and you sued me for a million dollars.
It shouldn't be the law. It's in contradiction with hundreds of years of jurisprudence in this county. It doesn't make any sense and yet, it is the law. And you and many others just shrug and say, "that's the it is and the way it shall always be". Lord I hope you are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they're calm after they got their fix.
Any consideration that their heightened state of agitation before playing might have been caused by having to take the stupid test instead of logging in?
...Car thieves have declared the police have no legal authority to prevent them from stealing cars.
Good luck with that.
I don't really understand what Comcast hopes to get out of such an "above the law" argument. It's just bound to piss off the FCC regulators even more and make them more committed to enforcing whatever decision they make against Comcast. Just to show all the other cable companies and telcos that they aren't to be messed with.
how come this post isn't modded +1 Funny? I coulda sworn this was a joke. 8 gigs!
fair enough.
must be good to be that rich
except when we run out of IP addresses, there wont be any new globally accessible servers. when we run out of oil, it wont matter how many IP addresses we have, because the modern world will completely collapse.
Same thing with climate change, the human race has taken no decisive steps towards curbing greenhouse gases. Despite the dire warnings of leading scientists over many years, despite modeling the greenhouse buildup's future effects, and despite a pretty universal feeling that everything is getting pretty f-ed up. I get the sense that we'll start doing something to address the problem right about when the Atlantic Ocean floods over Manhattan island. Of course, millions or billions of people will already be dead at that point.
But eventually solutions will come along.
What ICANN is doing here is actually something incredible laudable. They are actually taking positive steps to address (no pun intended) a future problem in a systematic way. I am sure in 2011 when IPv4 is getting close to used up, there will be a couple people frantically switching over to IPv6, but because IPv6 will have been around for so long, most people will have adopted it long before it ever becomes a problem.
bravo. mod parent up.
Weaning people off of the Windows dependence does not begin with Windows, it begins with it's games.
There, I fixed that for you.
you get a pop-up every time you run an application on your computer and that's ok with you? Does it make you feel safer to know that even though you are running an application you have run a hundred times before, Windows is still going to ask you if you "Are sure you want to do that? It could be unsafe!"
Do you find that you read the warnings or do you just click OK as soon as you see them (thus rendering the warnings pointless)?
UAC is a joke. And so are many of the other strange "security" measures they have taken (Disabling and HIDING the Administrator account? Making Program Files & ProgramData protected, read-only folders?)
This is definitely old news. The edits happened in 2005, the article completely blows it out of proportion (the URL is "bush censors wikipedia" which is pretty ridiculous), and anyone who's been paying attention already knows that Congress-critters and their staffers love to edit wikipedia.
So kudos to you for pointing that out.
However, then you run off on a rambling and weird digression and into some random defense of the Iraq-war hawks.
You make a sound argument in trying to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda, except that you overlook the fact that outside of the western world, Al Qaeda is (and has long been) quite popular. So, yes, there may have been some limited contacts between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, but as far as anyone can tell they were never substantial. Nor were they ever of the same scale as support from other countries that we currently count as allies in the Farce on Terror.
As far as the cruise-missile attack you referenced, I don't things are as cut-and-dry as you present them. Here's the wikipedia article on the bombing of al-Shifa. (I know the wikipedia isn't the strongest source ever, but this pretty much jives with what I remember from the news at the time.) There may have been some Al-Qaeda influence, and they may have been using the plant as cover for a nerve gas experiment, but almost 10 years later there's no evidence for either of those things. And there's absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was in any way involved.
So, yes. The intelligence services were concerned about Al Qaeda even before Bush took office. They thought there may be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But saying that without also saying that we had far more intelligence linking Al-Qaeda to countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is disingenuous. It's a lie by omission. Especially in the case of elected officials using classified information to build public support for a war of aggression.
Now, let's address this NIE thing. The reason why the new NIE on Iran has been so well received is that it fits well with what the rest of the world has been saying about Iran. You may remember the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bushies were saying that Iraq was "this close" to a nuclear bomb and that they had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (WMDs! WMDs!) Meanwhile, everyone else (including people who would know) was saying the exact opposite. We ignored the nay-sayers (that is, pretty much the whole world) and trusted our intelligence services and our leaders and we got exactly what we deserved (an unending war of occupation, costing countless Iraqi, American, and "coalition" lives, not to mention mortgaging the USA to the hilt).
Is a nuclear Iran a threat? Maybe. But it's a huge leap of faith to go from "we have no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program" to "If Iran had nuclear weapons they could be dangerous" to "we need to start a preemptive war with Iran". Which is exactly what the Bush administration did in the case of Iraq. The difference in this new NIE, as far as I can tell, is that the people who put it together took explicit measures to prevent the administration from making that cognitive leap again.
For that matter, what the hell does "prioritizing resources and organization" mean? How does one prioritize organization?
Why not call it the "Bill for the Creation of a Department of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement". No acronym required!
The funny thing is, this isn't like the PATRIOT act or the Protect America Act where they're dressing up a repugnant law to look pretty for the ignorant masses. They're not trying to fool anyone by naming it the PRO-IP law.
It is a law designed to protect current IP holders' hegemonic right to profits forever. If you don't like that idea, you're not going to be lambasted in the press for not being PRO-IP. (You're going to be lambasted in the press for being a communist hippy with no idea how the world works, but that's a different issue.)
It's time for a new law the "Name Bills For What They Do, You Jerks" act of 2008 or NBFWTDYJ if you prefer.
These numbers are completely ridiculous. Estimated costs in dollars are always nebulous and hard to disprove, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify the 750K jobs number.
Considering that the movie studios & music business seem to be doing just fine despite these "increasing global economic costs" I find it hard to believe they're going to be hiring 3-quarters of a million more people to do the exact same amount of work they're already doing.
The only jobs this bill is going to create are the Intellectual Property police that staff this new agency. And since they're going to be funded through seizures of private property, it's hard to see how that will act as anything but a leech on the economy.
The fact that their environmental records are impossible to determine should not be considered a defense.
I am a consumer of consoles and games. I am also gravely concerned about the environment. In an ideal world, I would favor (e.g. buy more of the products of) only manufacturers that use the most environmentally-sound practices. However, today, there's no easy way for me to tell if Nintendo is "greener" than Microsoft or Sony. And since I cannot tell, I cannot base my purchasing decisions on it, and there's no incentive (from the demand side anyway) for Nintendo, Microsoft or anyone else to spend extra money to use less fossil fuels/harmful chemicals/baby seals in their products.
Reports like this one from Greenpeace are a first step in getting these companies to be more transparent regarding the true environmental cost of their manufacturing processes. If that information became as ubiquitous as privacy policies it would lead to an arms-race among manufacturers to see who could implement the greenest practices.
So before you damn Greenpeace for taking your favorite console maker to task, consider the broader picture of what they're trying to accomplish.
I am going to guess that you have a couple dozen extensions installed on firefox and most of them you don't ever use (or even think about). Get rid of the extensions you're not actively using and see if that helps both the memory and speed problems you're seeing.
Alternatively, you could use Opera.
grate (noun): iron grill no, that's not it.
grate (verb): scrape/rub not that either
grate (verb): get on my nerves well, egregious spelling mistakes do that...
I think the word you are looking for is great.
I'm sure Tesla wrote it down somewhere.
this needs to be modded up.
how could you be the first person to post this?
touch-typing works because you can feel where your hands are over the keyboard. You can feel when a key has been pressed. Without that tactile feedback, you cannot touch type, and (surprise!) you wont be able to improve your typing speed/accuracy. (You will always be hunting and pecking on the iPhone.)
The apple people knew that, and they made a conscious decision to sacrifice typing speed for screen real-estate.
Seems to have paid off.
you have pointed out that if something unexpected happens on the road the chances of your having an accident go up. brilliant.
and if the driver is paying perfect attention and reacts perfectly, the accident might be avoided. to this end, talking on a cell-phone may prevent the driver from reacting correctly.
However, the same could be said for listening to the radio, talking to another passenger in the car, looking at the beautiful foliage, day-dreaming about that girl from accounts-receivable, looking in your rear-view mirrors, or any of the other countless things we do to break up the mind-achingly dull monotony of driving.
The things Verizon and Sprint have patents on, AT&T has patents on. All big telcos have thousands of patents covering every aspect of the telephone industry. And now with the loss in the Verizon case and a settlement in the Sprint case, it's clear that Vonage is incapable of defending their business model. It's time (and perhaps past time) for anyone with a patent claim to get in on the game.
Vonage is no longer a viable company. They are just a lump of cash, hemorrhaging out to anyone who looks at them crossly. Right now the game is for the tens/hundreds of millions of dollars Vonage has in cash. But that's just the appetizer; the real prize is the millions of Vonage customers who can be converted over to a "Triple Play" package.
please!
Here's what I do know for certain. The Bush administration authorized the spy agencies to eavesdrop on communications of US citizens without first attaining a warrant even though this was in clear violation of existing laws (specifically the FISA law). His administration also, it appears, made the telecommunications industry an accomplice to this illegal action and is now trying to prevent investigation by claiming that anything it does that's illegal is a state secret.
Maybe there's a justification for that, although I haven't heard anything to justify it yet. But whatever Bush was thinking when he did it is less important than the fact that the laws of our nation as passed by Congress should be inviolable. When one man can willfully (and secretly) invalidate those laws without reprisal or repudiation, the fact that we have laws begins to lose meaning.
Now, I guess you think this allegation that Clinton listened to a tape provided by "Bill's supporters" (see below) is comparable. I disagree. The actions of these supporters are clearly criminal and listening to the tape they provided might be some sort of misdemeanor (though I doubt it, IANAL). However, Bush's actions smack of a constitutional crisis, of the executive branch of government running roughshod over separation of powers and becoming the one and only actor on the national stage. The president, in time of war or time of peace, must still abide by the laws passed by Congress.
--
ps. I actually misread the article, as I thought it said the aides made the tape. What it actually says is... and
So, an aide didn't make the tape. Unspecified "supporters" of Bill Clinton made the tape and then delivered it to the Clinton campaign. It's very possible these were just over-eager partisans taking advantage of the growing ubiquity of cell-phones and the ease of intercepting to due what they considered their patriotic duty. But,
If the story is to be believed, the aides in question were not part of the federal government's spy agencies. There's quite a bit of difference between two dorks recording whatever cell communications float into range of their receiver and the CIA/FBI/NSA strong-arming the phone companies to let them listen in on every call, text-message, email, chat, etc... that happens in America.
Also, keep in mind that beyond whether the Bush administrations actions were legal, Congress is currently drafting a law which will delimit the scope and breadth of the CIA/NSA/FBI's powers to spy on communication that travels through American telephone providers. In order to make a sensible law, they need a full understanding of what wiretapping has occurred, what results it has achieved, and how the existing laws have been interpreted by the current agencies.
Our lawyers are pretty sure we broke the law and complied with an illegal order. But they're also pretty sure that Congress doesn't have the balls to confront the White House about this. So, complain all you want, but we'll being skiing in hell before we testify before Congress about this.
Say I stole a painting of your great grandmother (valuable to you, street value $25 for the frame). In my defense, I think it kinda resembles my great-grandmother which is why I took it. You sue me in small-claims and I lose. I would compensate you by either A) returning the painting or B) giving you some money to make up for the lost value (in the range of $20) or possibly both.
A penalty equivalent to the crime. Pretty simple and something we can all agree on.
But how does that apply that to this case? There was no loss of property or the utility of the property. So, while she is guilty of copyright infringement, her penalty under something that would resemble common-law would be "delete the music from your computer and stop doing it!" No financial liability since their was no financial loss to the record company.
However, in the United States of RIAA, the question of what losses the record company incurred is irrelevant. She violated copyright on a handful of lousy songs, her penalty is to pay $200,000?! How is that equitable?
This would be like if I took a picture of the painting of your great grandmother and used it on a flier for my garage sale and you sued me for a million dollars.
It shouldn't be the law. It's in contradiction with hundreds of years of jurisprudence in this county. It doesn't make any sense and yet, it is the law. And you and many others just shrug and say, "that's the it is and the way it shall always be". Lord I hope you are wrong.