Remember that spending bills originate in the house, which has been under republican control for the past 11 years, so they're going to get credit/blame for the vast majority of spending related events.
Um, yeah, except for the bit that the bills also have to pass muster in the Senate and survive veto threats. The House isn't single-handedly responsible for the nation's fiscal situation -- in fact, it's not even primarily responsible.
ahh. well the last 15 years include 8 years of clinton in the exectuive office. Since your question refers to executive action, the answer is that both parties are roughly equal in that regard, but under clinton, the agencies were not allowed to share information with each other.
Please be specific about the laws Clinton broke to conduct warrantless survelliance.
Also, it is imporant to remember, that at no time during the past 15 years was there ever an actual surplus. The surplus you refer to was a projected surplus slated to occur a few years into the bush presidency IF the economy continued grow at 1999 levels
Unfortunately for you, the actual data is easily available on the Internet:
Please see Table 1.1--SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (): 1789-2011
You'll find that in the overall budget, the U.S. ran surpluses in 1998-2001, and in the on-budget totals (not counting Social Security), the U.S. ran surpluses in 1999 and 2000.
In that both take actions most people don't expect to be taken without warning you, and both compromise privacy -- yes. Of course, this isn't a rootkit. At least, not as the story described it.
From the story, it appears as though the CD is billed as an interactive issue advertisement: as in, you put the CD in, it asks you questions designed to get you riled up, then tells you about the issue, without any notice that the information is sent somewhere.
Of course, the story could be wrong or incomplete.
Evidently, there's no notice that the information is submitted or sent beyond your computer, AND the information is publicly available. So, there's more to the story than an insecure web site.
Sounds like the Minnesota GOP thought the Sony DRM fiasco was pretty nifty.
How about this: GoP tries to get the nation laughing at the Democrats for even thinking of selecting Howard Dean for DNC chair. Conservatives online and off do their darndest to convince Democrats that selecting Dean is signing their own deathwarrants. He'll be a lightning rod for negative attention, etc., etc. "Please! Select Dean!" they cry (sound familiar?)
Fast forward one year, and surprise! No one cares that Dean was selected, except for the Democrats, who 1) feel energized by his involvement and party activism and 2) love the fact that he's far outdoing past DNC chairs in terms of fundraising and getting candidates for races.
If there's one thing I've learned in my decade or so of arguing politics online with everyone from far leftists to right-wing troglodytes, it's this: either due to disingenuousness or just plain political ineptitude, the advice conservatives offer to liberals on virtually any political topic is almost universally crap. And if you really believe what you say, then heaven knows how the hell you (as a movement) got where you are in this country. Obviously, the political accument is reserved for those somewhere above the rank-and-file level.
In other words, nice try. But somehow, I doubt the dialogue between Democratic lawmakers and grassroots political activists will turn out to be a net negative for either.
I'm sure you are being honest, just as I'm sure you're being honest that you think Dem politicians posting at dKos will matter one iota to anyone outside the wingnut community, much less be seen as a net negative.
Fortunately, your basic (and painfully evident) problem isn't a lack of honesty. It's a basic inability to discern what the average person thinks and cares about. Don't feel bad; it's a common affliction among far-righters, many of whom still think that most people agree with them on issues ranging from bread-and-butter stuff to adoration of the current White House occupant.
So, let ME be honest with YOU: I truly hope right-wing candidates take your advice, and spend their Abramoff-funneled cash on ads featuring Daily Kos. That would be very, very nice indeed.
Though, based upon your comment, I think we would disagree about both Iraq and Bush's motives/honesty, I think your comments regarding abridging the rights of Americans in the name of fighting the terrorist threat are right on. Bravo.
Perhaps the Right and the Left aren't so far apart these days as commentators would have America believe. Of course, dull talk about "everyone getting along" doesn't exactly garner ratings.
Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."
Sure they aren't. And NSA is only wiretapping terrorists.
Anyone remember the "Net Computer"? It was supposed to replace the generic computing platform. It turned out that it didn't quite work.
What it seems to me you're proposing is that just a couple of companies will take over information technology platform production, and put whatever limitations they want into that platform. I think competition, along with ever-changing applications for computers, will prevent this. It has thus far, despite predictions to the contrary.
I'm not saying that copyright profiteers wouldn't like things to work out the way you describe, however.
Really, the whole point is that the music industry as it was is competing with the ability of bands to record and market and distribute their own material. So I'd say the "better service" is already here. No need for an official launch date.
or will be healthy because of biased laws and active lobbying.
The only thing that could save them would be if it became illegal to publish and promote your own copyrighted music material online. And as much as I'm sure they'd like to have that happen, I can't imagine a majority in Congress coming up with a good enough excuse to do so.
...that it appears this group isn't the "RIAA" companies per se, but rather an organization of sheet music/lyrics publishers.
Sheet music, I can understand. But lyrics? What the hell? There are only two reasons to look up lyrics online:
1) Curiosity about that "one line" you've never been able to understand 2) Finding a certain song's name
Neither will impact business, period. In fact, both promote the song, which very likely promotes the buying of sheet music.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in relation to the copyright wars. It's the clearest example yet of companies suing "because they can" and because of a complete lack of business sense, rather than because it's in the public (or even their) interest to do so.
No one, and I mean no one, is going to shell out cash to buy lyrics. A manufacturer might as well sue customers for saying good things about their product in an online forum.
Really great plan. Take out sites that are probably used by many people (I am also one) to track down songs to buy.
These guys never met a good business plan or marketing scheme they didn't want to sue out of existence. The only reason they've survived this long is that they've been the only game in town.
Artists are already discovering that they can afford home studios and to self-publish their songs online, which (as recent studies indicate) helps market the small-time bands. I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business.
Well, there's absolutely nothing about "lie detectors" that will prevent this. This is truly idiotic, and will: 1) serve to falsely finger innocent people 2) instill a false sense of confidence that those flagged as "telling the truth" are not a problem.
This is a really, really dumb idea. Lie detectors don't work, period.
...the terms "steal" and "theft" as applies to copyright infringement have become too widely ingrained in any discussion on the matter, and that includes those on the side of the angels.
The facts remain that 1) the terms have been widely promoted by copyright hawks for PR purposes (effectively, evidently) and 2) whether or not DVD Jon ever said copyright infringement isn't theft has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he has a right to be upset that Sony used his code without permission (assuming they did do this).
Yeah, fair use and all that. The fact remains that like Jon, who published his code under certain terms, people who buy DVD's do so under certain terms (including use on licensed players). Either the publisher has a right to expect users to honor those terms, or he doesn't.
Some terms are reasonable, some aren't. You can't be compelled by a EULA to turn over your first born child, for example.
Now, I'm no lawyer. But fair use is an important principle that's been upheld by the Supreme Court. So I have real doubts that the terms of a license can circumvent fair use so easily.
As for copyright infringement not being theft, that's really peripheral to the issue, or to what DVD Jon did, or whether or not he has a right to go after anyone for infringing his own code. The only reason it matters at all is the fact that copyright hawks keep using the term "theft" for PR purposes.
If, when it is revealed that the fuel pump causes fires and the automaker issues an immediate recall, often they are indemified from any furhter lawsuits (IIRC, you can still sue, but your settlement will be substantionally smaller as case history shows).
Sony has taken the first step in this process, they yanked the disks off the shelf. Now if they issue a notice that they will replace disks with non (or different) DRM tech, then they are going to greatly lower their lawsuit potential.
The problem with this analogy is that Sony has known all along what was included on their disks and what it did. And they took more than two weeks after someone first cried foul to take reasonable actions regarding it.
Really, it doesn't matter. This wasn't accidental. Sony deliberately included malicious software on their CD's, and in the process, likely violated some pretty serious laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that spending bills originate in the house, which has been under republican control for the past 11 years, so they're going to get credit/blame for the vast majority of spending related events.
Um, yeah, except for the bit that the bills also have to pass muster in the Senate and survive veto threats. The House isn't single-handedly responsible for the nation's fiscal situation -- in fact, it's not even primarily responsible.
ahh. well the last 15 years include 8 years of clinton in the exectuive office. Since your question refers to executive action, the answer is that both parties are roughly equal in that regard, but under clinton, the agencies were not allowed to share information with each other.
Please be specific about the laws Clinton broke to conduct warrantless survelliance.
Also, it is imporant to remember, that at no time during the past 15 years was there ever an actual surplus. The surplus you refer to was a projected surplus slated to occur a few years into the bush presidency IF the economy continued grow at 1999 levels
Unfortunately for you, the actual data is easily available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/hist.html
Please see Table 1.1--SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (): 1789-2011
You'll find that in the overall budget, the U.S. ran surpluses in 1998-2001, and in the on-budget totals (not counting Social Security), the U.S. ran surpluses in 1999 and 2000.
...the eternal libertarian philosophical lynchpin: "fuck you".
NO ONE but a libertarian could confuse regulated capitalism with socialism. It's a sure sign of an extremist. Thanks for playing.
In that both take actions most people don't expect to be taken without warning you, and both compromise privacy -- yes. Of course, this isn't a rootkit. At least, not as the story described it.
From the story, it appears as though the CD is billed as an interactive issue advertisement: as in, you put the CD in, it asks you questions designed to get you riled up, then tells you about the issue, without any notice that the information is sent somewhere.
Of course, the story could be wrong or incomplete.
Evidently, there's no notice that the information is submitted or sent beyond your computer, AND the information is publicly available. So, there's more to the story than an insecure web site.
Sounds like the Minnesota GOP thought the Sony DRM fiasco was pretty nifty.
How about this:
GoP tries to get the nation laughing at the Democrats for even thinking of selecting Howard Dean for DNC chair. Conservatives online and off do their darndest to convince Democrats that selecting Dean is signing their own deathwarrants. He'll be a lightning rod for negative attention, etc., etc. "Please! Select Dean!" they cry (sound familiar?)
Fast forward one year, and surprise! No one cares that Dean was selected, except for the Democrats, who 1) feel energized by his involvement and party activism and 2) love the fact that he's far outdoing past DNC chairs in terms of fundraising and getting candidates for races.
If there's one thing I've learned in my decade or so of arguing politics online with everyone from far leftists to right-wing troglodytes, it's this: either due to disingenuousness or just plain political ineptitude, the advice conservatives offer to liberals on virtually any political topic is almost universally crap. And if you really believe what you say, then heaven knows how the hell you (as a movement) got where you are in this country. Obviously, the political accument is reserved for those somewhere above the rank-and-file level.
In other words, nice try. But somehow, I doubt the dialogue between Democratic lawmakers and grassroots political activists will turn out to be a net negative for either.
I'm sure you are being honest, just as I'm sure you're being honest that you think Dem politicians posting at dKos will matter one iota to anyone outside the wingnut community, much less be seen as a net negative.
Fortunately, your basic (and painfully evident) problem isn't a lack of honesty. It's a basic inability to discern what the average person thinks and cares about. Don't feel bad; it's a common affliction among far-righters, many of whom still think that most people agree with them on issues ranging from bread-and-butter stuff to adoration of the current White House occupant.
So, let ME be honest with YOU: I truly hope right-wing candidates take your advice, and spend their Abramoff-funneled cash on ads featuring Daily Kos. That would be very, very nice indeed.
Though, based upon your comment, I think we would disagree about both Iraq and Bush's motives/honesty, I think your comments regarding abridging the rights of Americans in the name of fighting the terrorist threat are right on. Bravo.
Perhaps the Right and the Left aren't so far apart these days as commentators would have America believe. Of course, dull talk about "everyone getting along" doesn't exactly garner ratings.
Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."
Sure they aren't. And NSA is only wiretapping terrorists.
Anyone remember the "Net Computer"? It was supposed to replace the generic computing platform. It turned out that it didn't quite work.
What it seems to me you're proposing is that just a couple of companies will take over information technology platform production, and put whatever limitations they want into that platform. I think competition, along with ever-changing applications for computers, will prevent this. It has thus far, despite predictions to the contrary.
I'm not saying that copyright profiteers wouldn't like things to work out the way you describe, however.
...but considering that many, many people seem to think iTunes et al are even easier and worth the small cost, I wouldn't bet on it.
I realized after I posted MY response that it looked like I was responding to you. I knew you were quoting :)
...you owe him an apology :)
Really, the whole point is that the music industry as it was is competing with the ability of bands to record and market and distribute their own material. So I'd say the "better service" is already here. No need for an official launch date.
...to save them.
or will be healthy because of biased laws and active lobbying.
The only thing that could save them would be if it became illegal to publish and promote your own copyrighted music material online. And as much as I'm sure they'd like to have that happen, I can't imagine a majority in Congress coming up with a good enough excuse to do so.
...that it appears this group isn't the "RIAA" companies per se, but rather an organization of sheet music/lyrics publishers.
Sheet music, I can understand. But lyrics? What the hell? There are only two reasons to look up lyrics online:
1) Curiosity about that "one line" you've never been able to understand
2) Finding a certain song's name
Neither will impact business, period. In fact, both promote the song, which very likely promotes the buying of sheet music.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in relation to the copyright wars. It's the clearest example yet of companies suing "because they can" and because of a complete lack of business sense, rather than because it's in the public (or even their) interest to do so.
No one, and I mean no one, is going to shell out cash to buy lyrics. A manufacturer might as well sue customers for saying good things about their product in an online forum.
"Bull" and "Shit".
I am so sick of that excuse.
This has never been about the artists, who are making increased profits with p2p file sharing, etc.
This is about a few mega-corps who have had a cartel lock on the marketplace, and haven't had to develop any business sense at all.
Songwriters are primarily song performers, and they make most of their money in tours.
Really great plan. Take out sites that are probably used by many people (I am also one) to track down songs to buy.
These guys never met a good business plan or marketing scheme they didn't want to sue out of existence. The only reason they've survived this long is that they've been the only game in town.
Artists are already discovering that they can afford home studios and to self-publish their songs online, which (as recent studies indicate) helps market the small-time bands. I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business.
...that's just a guess.
I guess they'd be liable for the copies sold in Texas alone. I was figuring for all 2.1 million CD's :)
Even so, I would imagine we're talking more than 10,000 CD's (over a billion dollars).
Let's see, how many copies of the CD did they sell, multiply by $100,000.
Comes to roughly $200 billion.
I wonder if the RIAA will help them out with that. I sure wouldn't be unhappy if that drained the kitty for suing consumers instead.
...that goes double for voice stress analyzers (VSA's), which is actually what the article is describing.
It's a bunch of damned snake oil, and it won't do a bit of good to fight terrorism. All it will do is inconvenience (or worse) innocent people.
Well, there's absolutely nothing about "lie detectors" that will prevent this. This is truly idiotic, and will:
1) serve to falsely finger innocent people
2) instill a false sense of confidence that those flagged as "telling the truth" are not a problem.
This is a really, really dumb idea. Lie detectors don't work, period.
...the terms "steal" and "theft" as applies to copyright infringement have become too widely ingrained in any discussion on the matter, and that includes those on the side of the angels.
The facts remain that 1) the terms have been widely promoted by copyright hawks for PR purposes (effectively, evidently) and 2) whether or not DVD Jon ever said copyright infringement isn't theft has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he has a right to be upset that Sony used his code without permission (assuming they did do this).
Yeah, fair use and all that. The fact remains that like Jon, who published his code under certain terms, people who buy DVD's do so under certain terms (including use on licensed players). Either the publisher has a right to expect users to honor those terms, or he doesn't.
Some terms are reasonable, some aren't. You can't be compelled by a EULA to turn over your first born child, for example.
Now, I'm no lawyer. But fair use is an important principle that's been upheld by the Supreme Court. So I have real doubts that the terms of a license can circumvent fair use so easily.
As for copyright infringement not being theft, that's really peripheral to the issue, or to what DVD Jon did, or whether or not he has a right to go after anyone for infringing his own code. The only reason it matters at all is the fact that copyright hawks keep using the term "theft" for PR purposes.
If, when it is revealed that the fuel pump causes fires and the automaker issues an immediate recall, often they are indemified from any furhter lawsuits (IIRC, you can still sue, but your settlement will be substantionally smaller as case history shows).
Sony has taken the first step in this process, they yanked the disks off the shelf. Now if they issue a notice that they will replace disks with non (or different) DRM tech, then they are going to greatly lower their lawsuit potential.
The problem with this analogy is that Sony has known all along what was included on their disks and what it did. And they took more than two weeks after someone first cried foul to take reasonable actions regarding it.
Really, it doesn't matter. This wasn't accidental. Sony deliberately included malicious software on their CD's, and in the process, likely violated some pretty serious laws.