Welcome to the War on Copying. I'm sure it will be as successful as the War on Drugs.
I'm just waiting for the Copyright Office to get its allocation of jackbooted thugs...mandatory minimums for unauthorized copying...the death penalty for "copying kingpins"...Partenership for a P2P-free America (funded by the RIAA, just like PDFA is funded largely by beer and cigarette makers)....
The nice thing about having the news media, for the most part, on your side, is that you're simply not asked questions that you'd want to duck...I want to know what they've done and thought and how they've conducted themselves in, say, the last 10 years, if I'm going to use it as any indication of how they would be in office in the near future.
I don't think that has much to do with media being "on his side" (an assertation I'd dispute), but rather with the general nature of soundbite politics and of the complexities of the legislative process.
If you want the inforation, it's certainly available. But only the deepest policy wonks can really grasp most of it - it's full of things like this:
Vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour by September 1, 2000.
Stories about getting shot at in the jungle are simply more understandable and gripping than stories about a vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment (whatever the hell that all means).
Or else he's afraid to set foot in Florida after the problems he caused in 2000.
The Republicans disenfranchise thousands, Gore play some of the worst politics seen on the national stage in years, and it's Nader who should be afraid to show his face in Florida?
In case anyone was unsure of which way Slashdot leaned, notice that this post is identical to the parent with "Kerry" and "Bush" transposed, thereby earning it a "Flamebait" instead of "Insightful".
Given that Bush has avoided press conferences and made attendees at his speech sign loyalty oaths, accusing him of ducking questions has some basis.
Kerry may give inarticulate, confusing, and stupid answers, and generally fail around like a dying fish. But I don't think an accusation of him ducking questions has much weight, though I'm willing to hear arguments. (It might have been better for his campaign if he'd learned some question-ducking.)
Reproduction is illegal, per 17 USC 106(1) unless authorized by the copyright holder, or an exemption applies, and none do.
The U.S. code doesn't apply to acts of reproduction or publication by allofmp3.com in Russia.
Allofmp3.com can legally transfer copies to me, and I have the right to import for personal use reproductions from Russia. I could fly to Russia and come back with a suitcase full of cheap CDs for personal use.
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry deals with publication, not downloading, and doesn't involve and international issues.
Decently encoded music, takes quite a bit of CPU power and quite a bit of time.
It's a solved problem. Allofmp3.com offers you the option to select either MP3. MP4, or Ogg Vorbis at a variety of bitrates. The songs are encoded to order and you are sent an e-mail message when they are ready for download.
Why is it so hard to have one set of private records for the registrar and another set for the public and to do it without charging an extra $10/yr per domain?!
Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
If you don't want the responsibilities, including making contact information available, don't have your own domain. Or hire someone to perform those responsibilities for you.
Re:OT: your sig (was Re:Which Death Star?)
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
The correction/retraction is very ambiguous about what exactly is being corrected/retracted.
Did Rep. King get minor details wrong, or is he taking something out of context, or making up out of whole cloth?
No, it's not at all ambiguous. Both King's claim and Kerry's actual words are presented. It's clear that King either badly mis-remembered, or fabricated his claim about, Kerry's words.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
Being crushed in a building brought down by an American airstrike, though, is not terrorism, it is collateral damage.
American airstikes are the use of force and intimidation to bring about political change (the establishment of a psuedo-democratic U.S. friendly government in the region). They are illegal by international law and labeled terrorism by some, but claimed legal and "collateral damage" by the perpitrators.
The execution (by grusome beheading) of occupation workers is the use of force and intimidation to bring about political change (the exit of occupation forces and the establishment of religious government). They are illegal by international law and labeled terrorism by some, but claimed legal and "the actions of righteousness" by the perpitrators under the twisted version of Islamic law to which they subscribe.
Both are the actions of people who are sorely lacking in basic respect for the lives of innocent people.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
If you can, then yes.
So all a "terrorist" group has to do is declare itself "the provisional government". It's what the Founding Fathers did, and later the "Confederate States of America".
"Legal" just means "some body claiming to be a government said it's ok".
However, note that war is legal.
But the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law. So what does that make the U.S. government?
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1, Troll
You might want to mention, you know, in passing, maybe in parentheses, that what makes a terrorist a terrorist is the fact that he deliberately murders innocent people by blowing them
to bits for absolutely no reason
Those we label "terrorists" certainly have reasons and goals, usually of political change. And thousands of innocent Iraqi people have been killed for the American reasons and goals of political change, far more Americans than have been killed by Iraqis resistance fighters/terrorists.
Is having your head sawed off by an Iraqi "terrorist" a worse way to go than being crushed in a building brought down by an American airstrike? Fucked if I know, and I wish no one ever had to face either possibility.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What reason could possibly justify terrorism?
You're engaging in circular reasoning. If your defintion of terrorism is, as you state, "[w]hat makes a terrorist a terrorist is the fact that he [kills] for absolutely no reason," then the answer if trivial, but you have the problem that your defintion applies to almost no one we usually label terrorists.
Let's look at another defintion from the FBI: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"
Note the qualifier "unlawful". So all I have to do is pass a law saying what I do is ok. But if we remove that qualifier, no doubt that most major governments are terrorist organizations. Ooops.
And that's the problem. Every state uses force and terror for political goals. There is no clean shining line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".
OT: your sig (was Re:Which Death Star?)
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 3, Informative
John Kerry argued for unilateral preemptive action in Iraq on CNN's CROSSFIRE in '97
Please follow the link, notice the correction/retraction, and correct your.sig (preferably with a correction/retraction of your own).
(Gee, a paper controlled by the Moonies gets incorrect facts about Kerry from a Republican source. Color me shocked.)
Please, it's time to grow up. The world cannot be usefully divided into "good guys" and "bad guys" - not only are both sides shades of gray, it's mottled gray, with lighter and darker patches.
If we (the U.S.) were the pure "good guys", we wouldn't have put Saddam into power in the first place.
We don't start killing off 100 for every one of ours killed, at random, in a public square....
What are you talking about? If 100 American soldiers had been killed for every Iraqi civilian killed, there'd be about 1,300,000 flag-draped coffins coming in to Dover.
One socialist group is the Democratic Socialists of America, and they work within the Democratic party.
I'm pretty sure they weren't around in the 1950s...Democratic Socialists of America dates to the early 1980s. And the Democratic is as in democracy, not as in the Democratic party.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's already dying from the slow poisoning caused by the contamination of food, soil, and water by pesticides?
Here's a sample of how our current agricultural practices are doing in India: poisons in the water on top of depletion of water resources.So as a Republican, you don't want your party to support freedom and privacy. Thanks for admitting it, I'd suspected that for a long time.
Depends of what you mean by "God". The "problem of evil" is adequate counterexample to the idea of a god that is omnipotent and perfectly good.
Yes! A spare car key in the wallet has saved me several times over the years.
Actually, yes. American "privateers" attacked civilian merchant ships.
And certainly American forces have attacked civilian targets since then (the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear attacks on Japan).
The difference pretty much depends on who gets to write the history and the "rules" of war.
Welcome to the War on Copying. I'm sure it will be as successful as the War on Drugs.
I'm just waiting for the Copyright Office to get its allocation of jackbooted thugs...mandatory minimums for unauthorized copying...the death penalty for "copying kingpins"...Partenership for a P2P-free America (funded by the RIAA, just like PDFA is funded largely by beer and cigarette makers)....
I don't think that has much to do with media being "on his side" (an assertation I'd dispute), but rather with the general nature of soundbite politics and of the complexities of the legislative process.
If you want the inforation, it's certainly available. But only the deepest policy wonks can really grasp most of it - it's full of things like this:
Stories about getting shot at in the jungle are simply more understandable and gripping than stories about a vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment (whatever the hell that all means).
In most states, evictions require subtantial prior notice.
We're in a two-party system only as long as people believe we're in a two-party system. It's not a legal or constitutional arifact.
The Republicans disenfranchise thousands, Gore play some of the worst politics seen on the national stage in years, and it's Nader who should be afraid to show his face in Florida?
Given that Bush has avoided press conferences and made attendees at his speech sign loyalty oaths, accusing him of ducking questions has some basis.
Kerry may give inarticulate, confusing, and stupid answers, and generally fail around like a dying fish. But I don't think an accusation of him ducking questions has much weight, though I'm willing to hear arguments. (It might have been better for his campaign if he'd learned some question-ducking.)
While asserted by many. that's not at all clear.
The U.S. code doesn't apply to acts of reproduction or publication by allofmp3.com in Russia.
Allofmp3.com can legally transfer copies to me, and I have the right to import for personal use reproductions from Russia. I could fly to Russia and come back with a suitcase full of cheap CDs for personal use.
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry deals with publication, not downloading, and doesn't involve and international issues.
Not really revelavent to people's use of allofmp3.com, since it exempts importation for personal use.
Some consideration of allofmp3.com legal issues can be found here.
It's a solved problem. Allofmp3.com offers you the option to select either MP3. MP4, or Ogg Vorbis at a variety of bitrates. The songs are encoded to order and you are sent an e-mail message when they are ready for download.
Because running a domain is a responsibility. As RFC 1591 puts it,
If you don't want the responsibilities, including making contact information available, don't have your own domain. Or hire someone to perform those responsibilities for you.
No, it's not at all ambiguous. Both King's claim and Kerry's actual words are presented. It's clear that King either badly mis-remembered, or fabricated his claim about, Kerry's words.
American airstikes are the use of force and intimidation to bring about political change (the establishment of a psuedo-democratic U.S. friendly government in the region). They are illegal by international law and labeled terrorism by some, but claimed legal and "collateral damage" by the perpitrators.
The execution (by grusome beheading) of occupation workers is the use of force and intimidation to bring about political change (the exit of occupation forces and the establishment of religious government). They are illegal by international law and labeled terrorism by some, but claimed legal and "the actions of righteousness" by the perpitrators under the twisted version of Islamic law to which they subscribe.
Both are the actions of people who are sorely lacking in basic respect for the lives of innocent people.
So all a "terrorist" group has to do is declare itself "the provisional government". It's what the Founding Fathers did, and later the "Confederate States of America".
"Legal" just means "some body claiming to be a government said it's ok".
But the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law. So what does that make the U.S. government?
Those we label "terrorists" certainly have reasons and goals, usually of political change. And thousands of innocent Iraqi people have been killed for the American reasons and goals of political change, far more Americans than have been killed by Iraqis resistance fighters/terrorists.
Is having your head sawed off by an Iraqi "terrorist" a worse way to go than being crushed in a building brought down by an American airstrike? Fucked if I know, and I wish no one ever had to face either possibility.
You're engaging in circular reasoning. If your defintion of terrorism is, as you state, "[w]hat makes a terrorist a terrorist is the fact that he [kills] for absolutely no reason," then the answer if trivial, but you have the problem that your defintion applies to almost no one we usually label terrorists.
Let's look at another defintion from the FBI: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"
Note the qualifier "unlawful". So all I have to do is pass a law saying what I do is ok. But if we remove that qualifier, no doubt that most major governments are terrorist organizations. Ooops.
And that's the problem. Every state uses force and terror for political goals. There is no clean shining line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".
Please follow the link, notice the correction/retraction, and correct your .sig (preferably with a correction/retraction of your own).
(Gee, a paper controlled by the Moonies gets incorrect facts about Kerry from a Republican source. Color me shocked.)
Please, it's time to grow up. The world cannot be usefully divided into "good guys" and "bad guys" - not only are both sides shades of gray, it's mottled gray, with lighter and darker patches.
If we (the U.S.) were the pure "good guys", we wouldn't have put Saddam into power in the first place.
What are you talking about? If 100 American soldiers had been killed for every Iraqi civilian killed, there'd be about 1,300,000 flag-draped coffins coming in to Dover.
I'm pretty sure they weren't around in the 1950s...Democratic Socialists of America dates to the early 1980s. And the Democratic is as in democracy, not as in the Democratic party.