"I suspect the judge here is ruling along similar lines: it's not sufficient for the RIAA to claim that the files were merely available, they have to claim the files were (reasonably) knowingly made available for the purposes of infringing distribution."
No, the judge said that a "distribution" had to ACTUALLY occur. That means that they would need to identify the receiving parties, and prove that the transaction took place. Since MediaSentry doesn't do that (yet), they have no evidence that and actual distribution took place.
Some powers can't be delegated, especially if the Constitution specifically addresses those roles. For example, the President cannot formally designate the power to appoint federal judges to, say, the head of the FBI. And the Senate cannot delegate their "advice and consent" to their political advisers.
You make a valid point, but I don't believe it applicable to this particular situation. Specifically, you say "...they work because frankly, the first one to attack is usually the one who "wins"." While technically valid, it misses the point - in a mugging, you are BY DEFINITION on the defensive. The initiative has already been lost - you have already been "attacked", at least as far as mindset goes.
There is a certain attractiveness to basically going batshit-bugfuck-monkey-poo-flinging insane in a mugging situation - the attackers may lose the initiative by the sheer ferocity (or downright bizarreness) of the response. But I'm still more an advocate of just running like hell, especially if there is a lone attacker. 1) Criminals are lazy-if they weren't they would be working for a living. Okay, that is a huge generalization, but they do choose marks by perceived ease of the attack. If they need to spend a lot of energy chasing after you, they will probably simply not bother. 2) Street thugs are notoriously bad shots, and it's pretty damned hard to hit a moving target with a handgun. Just remember the original "Inlaws" - "Serpentine! Serpentine!"
"You, however, seem to think I'm arguing geeks are interested in things that money is being spent upon."
Yes, I am arguing that, specifically because you said:
"Well, the military gets the money to buy the toys; if we moved, say, 20% of the military tech budget into space exploration, that would be a lot sexier right now." which I conveniently quoted in my response.
You said very specifically that if we spent more money on space exploration, it would be "a lot sexier", which in this context I presume to mean attractive to geeks. (If that was not what you were trying to say, you certainly chose a poor way of not saying it.) It is not a great logical leap to go from your statement to the general thesis that geeks are attracted to government programs with more money spent on them. I was simply pointing out a special case where that thesis does not hold valid.
"Well, the military gets the money to buy the toys; if we moved, say, 20% of the military tech budget into space exploration, that would be a lot sexier right now."
Social Security took up 20.2% of the 2007 federal budget. Defense took up 19%. By your logic, most geeks would be turned on by granny porn.
You say "most", "some", "most likely", and "not as many". So what? What about "some", "most", less likely, and "the rest"? You seem to be saying that, if violence happens to someone, because it is rare, that person should just accept it? They won the cosmic lottery?
That's OK - if the US had spent 50 years bribing it's underclass to keep it quiet, I'm sure things would be different as well. Instead we spent our money subsidizing European defense, freeing up the money they used to bribe their underclass.
Good luck on the next 50 years. Europe is going to burn (see Southern France Riots) and there's not dick all you can do about it - you are running out of money for bread and circuses. And the brown people are fucking a lot faster than the pale people. Oh, I forgot - Europe doesn't have racial or ethnic problems. Yet.
We have plenty of problems over here, but worrying about Europe is no longer one of them. You are going to need to deal with your problems all by yourself. (But I'm sure the EU will come to everyone's rescue) Have fun with that.
I don't fundamentally disagree with the concept of retreat/capitulation when confronted with a disparity of force. I have taken martial arts courses and they mainly use the same line - "Use situational awareness to keep out of trouble, and don't initiate force in a mugging situation, because you don't know what you are doing yet. If you don't believe that, come out on the floor and spar with the sensei and see how long you last." Good rules to follow.
My problem is with the second part of the advise that the GP stated - "Don't carry a gun". The "Guy" was saying not only to yield to superior force, but to not even attempt to equalize that force. If this was his true outlook, why was he bothering to teach intro level "self defense" courses? Ostensibly, their purpose is to allow one to defend ones self by teaching special skills that will balance out the attacker's presumed experience with violence. But as you (and I) have pointed out, such a low level of training is likely to INCREASE, not decrease, the odds of getting hurt. So why is he teaching something that he KNOWS will likely get people hurt worse, but counseling AGAINST carrying a firearm?
The reality is that, here and now (and not in some Utopia that never existed and will never exist), force and violence can and will be visited upon people, whether they like it or not. It waxes and wanes, but it will ALWAYS be there. There have been a few posts regarding how Europe isn't like that, or how it is only in the States that there are such levels of violence. While it may be true that there is more violence in the US, does that mean that there are no rapes in the EU? No murders? No muggings, no robberies? Rioters burned a significant portion of France a few years ago - no one died, but residents lived in fear for a few weeks. Is this not the use of force to affect other people's lives?
Telling people that they cannot defend themselves is sometimes the cold truth; telling people they *should* not defend themselves is corrupt; telling people they MAY not defend themselves is evil.
"I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?"
"Yes. Why? Because I don't KNOW that he is only there for the TV - he could be there for my daughter or my wife or me. Apparently you would be willing to wait and ask him what his intentions are. Good luck with that.
"And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?"
Huh? It appears that your premise is that if you "just cooperate" or if the intruder feels you are not a threat, then you won't get killed. First, I'd like to see some evidence of this, not just some theoretical logic train. Second, you act as if getting killed is the only violence that matters. Is not breaking into your domicile a violent act? Is not pulling a gun and threatening you a violent act? Is not forcing your cooperation with the threat of force a violent act? You seem willing to allows all kinds of violence against you, as long as it doesn't affect your physical person. Do some research on PTSD - it doesn't take physical injury to be damaged by violence.
And my favorite:
"I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him. He said - give them your wallet. Guy - And if I had a gun? Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet. Real life isn't like the movies."
So you took a self defense course where you were told NOT to defend yourself? Why did you bother? What was his advise if the mugger was unarmed? Fight back then? Where is your limit?
Let me clue you in - real life isn't like the dojo. If you are worried about your physical safety, DO NOT try hand to hand combat with an unknown opponent based on a "self defense course". You WILL feel pain, get injured, and possibly die. So if anyone asks for your wallet, just give it to him, armed or not, because if someone is willing to demand what is not theirs, they are more likely than you to be able to back that demand up with force. You can submit to others using force upon you, or not. But if you choose to submit, don't pretend that you are somehow morally superior or tactically better than those who choose not to submit.
Best one I ever played was called "Criss-Cross" sit/stand/lounge in a circle, and a person takes 2 empty cups and hold them in any one of a number of configurations, and announces "Crossed" or "Uncrossed". Then those who know the rules determine if the person is correct or incorrect, and if they are incorrect, they drink. The object of the game is to determine the rules for whether one should announce "Crossed" or "Uncrossed".
Hints: 1) It's not obvious. 2) Those who know the criteria will try to mislead those who don't. 3) Some folks will never pick up on it.
"releases based on a schedule (1 major release every 6 months, 1 release with long term support every 2 years), not when software is completely "ready". The merits of this can be argued by better geeks than I..."
I've always found it curious that the geek world seems to think it impossible to release 100% complete projects on a predetermined schedule. Other industries seem to do it with no problem.
"They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics..."
Riiiight. What color is the sky in the US that you live in?
Aside from the fact that the Democrats have adopted "Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics" with the fervor of alcoholics attending a free kegger, there's the fact that the Democrats don't HAVE another Roosevelt, nor will there probably ever be one again. And, despite the hysterical shrieking in the media, we are not even close to a depression by any objective measure. Finally, the Democrats of today are NOT those of the 30's and 40's - labor union membership is a fraction of what it was, and minorities actually participate in politics, unlike before.
If the majority of Democratic activists hold the same view as in the parent post, I can't see a Democratic re-ascendancy for a long, long time.
"That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun."
Assuming that could occur, why would the offer be accepted by either candidate? Being the VP is pretty much a dead-end job politically - you won't be elected President, because you can't claim the administration's success but you will get saddled with its liabilities (ref Al Gore).
Obama is at the beginning of his political career - why would he bother cutting it short? He gets another shot in 4 years, 8 if Hillary wins.
As for Hillary, she spent 40 years playing second banana to her philandering, ideologically soft husband, and now SHE is in front. Does anyone really expect her to voluntarily be placed in another man's shadow?
And then there's the problem of change. The common political wisdom is that folks want change - hence the political viability of either a black president or a woman president. But a ticket with both? Too much. Just too much change all at once.
It won't be a parallel internet until it too is saturated with porn.
(Unless it's like the parallel Goatee Universe in ST:TOS. In which case all the women will be dressed opaquely from head to toe? Or they will all have beards?)
Re:For those of you that are going to ask
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Anyone that goes into business with a family member...is a fool."
How could eBay perform a hostile takeover? I believe the balance of Craigslist stock is privately held, and NOT on the open market. I don't think eBay can force someone to sell stock to them.
That being said, I think this is the long delayed consequences of selling that stake to eBay in the first place. Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS). I think eBay bought in years ago expecting to cash in on the big IPO, which never happened, or reap dividends when Craigslist started accepting ads, which it didn't. Now they want to use their minority share position to force the Craigslist management to run things the way eBay wants it.
I hope Craigslist crushes them, but I'm not betting on it.
Re:SONY Loves Closed, Proprietary Systems
on
Sony to Buy Gracenote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, Sony finally won one of their format wars. Finally, after years of failing to achieve market dominance, they have a success.
Now what?
They have lots of experience making money with consumer electronics that leverage open formats - Walkman, Discman, and the metric assloads of VHS and DVD players they have sold. They have ZERO experience leveraging a market dominant position into profit.
Their attitude seems to have been "We make X dollars with Y percent of the market. So we will make X*(1/Y) dollars with 100% of the market." They ignore the case where the market with open standards is (1/Y) times BIGGER than the whole market with proprietary standards.
They are like the ass who goes out with the gang and always orders the personal pizza because they want it just the way they want, even though no one else wants it that way. He doesn't see that if he had pitched in he could have gotten a slice of the giant sized pie and still eaten more for less money than he paid for the pie that is "all his."
Slashdot Mirror
So, a company can't be "truly open source" if it makes money; i.e. is commercial.
Why?
"I suspect the judge here is ruling along similar lines: it's not sufficient for the RIAA to claim that the files were merely available, they have to claim the files were (reasonably) knowingly made available for the purposes of infringing distribution."
No, the judge said that a "distribution" had to ACTUALLY occur. That means that they would need to identify the receiving parties, and prove that the transaction took place. Since MediaSentry doesn't do that (yet), they have no evidence that and actual distribution took place.
There is a legal difference between "officer" and "employee"
Some powers can't be delegated, especially if the Constitution specifically addresses those roles. For example, the President cannot formally designate the power to appoint federal judges to, say, the head of the FBI. And the Senate cannot delegate their "advice and consent" to their political advisers.
Even though that's what really happens.
Yeah, yeah.
The first rule of kink - there is ALWAYS someone weirder than you out there.
"seeking to have a tool banned (gun, encryption, fetish pr0n) instead of punishing those who misuse them"
I'm curious - is there a way to misuse porn? Is there an incorrect way to masturbate? Is it possible people have been doing it wrong all these years?
I agree with the sentiment, but your examples are interesting, and show the scary progression being taken by governments.
A gun is a tool that can be used to injure someone.
Encryption is a tool that can be used to hide information.
Porn IS information.
So the next is thoughts.
I sincerely hope you get this outraged when the "Bush is Evil" meme comes up in every thread. Somehow, I doubt it.
Ahh, another reader of "The Pussification of the American Male".
Digging up Johnny Cochran might do it.
You make a valid point, but I don't believe it applicable to this particular situation. Specifically, you say "...they work because frankly, the first one to attack is usually the one who "wins"." While technically valid, it misses the point - in a mugging, you are BY DEFINITION on the defensive. The initiative has already been lost - you have already been "attacked", at least as far as mindset goes.
There is a certain attractiveness to basically going batshit-bugfuck-monkey-poo-flinging insane in a mugging situation - the attackers may lose the initiative by the sheer ferocity (or downright bizarreness) of the response. But I'm still more an advocate of just running like hell, especially if there is a lone attacker.
1) Criminals are lazy-if they weren't they would be working for a living. Okay, that is a huge generalization, but they do choose marks by perceived ease of the attack. If they need to spend a lot of energy chasing after you, they will probably simply not bother.
2) Street thugs are notoriously bad shots, and it's pretty damned hard to hit a moving target with a handgun. Just remember the original "Inlaws" - "Serpentine! Serpentine!"
"You, however, seem to think I'm arguing geeks are interested in things that money is being spent upon."
Yes, I am arguing that, specifically because you said:
"Well, the military gets the money to buy the toys; if we moved, say, 20% of the military tech budget into space exploration, that would be a lot sexier right now."
which I conveniently quoted in my response.
You said very specifically that if we spent more money on space exploration, it would be "a lot sexier", which in this context I presume to mean attractive to geeks. (If that was not what you were trying to say, you certainly chose a poor way of not saying it.) It is not a great logical leap to go from your statement to the general thesis that geeks are attracted to government programs with more money spent on them. I was simply pointing out a special case where that thesis does not hold valid.
"Well, the military gets the money to buy the toys; if we moved, say, 20% of the military tech budget into space exploration, that would be a lot sexier right now."
Social Security took up 20.2% of the 2007 federal budget. Defense took up 19%. By your logic, most geeks would be turned on by granny porn.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
You say "most", "some", "most likely", and "not as many". So what? What about "some", "most", less likely, and "the rest"? You seem to be saying that, if violence happens to someone, because it is rare, that person should just accept it? They won the cosmic lottery?
Statistically correct. Morally repugnant.
That's OK - if the US had spent 50 years bribing it's underclass to keep it quiet, I'm sure things would be different as well. Instead we spent our money subsidizing European defense, freeing up the money they used to bribe their underclass.
Good luck on the next 50 years. Europe is going to burn (see Southern France Riots) and there's not dick all you can do about it - you are running out of money for bread and circuses. And the brown people are fucking a lot faster than the pale people. Oh, I forgot - Europe doesn't have racial or ethnic problems. Yet.
We have plenty of problems over here, but worrying about Europe is no longer one of them. You are going to need to deal with your problems all by yourself. (But I'm sure the EU will come to everyone's rescue) Have fun with that.
I don't fundamentally disagree with the concept of retreat/capitulation when confronted with a disparity of force. I have taken martial arts courses and they mainly use the same line - "Use situational awareness to keep out of trouble, and don't initiate force in a mugging situation, because you don't know what you are doing yet. If you don't believe that, come out on the floor and spar with the sensei and see how long you last." Good rules to follow.
My problem is with the second part of the advise that the GP stated - "Don't carry a gun". The "Guy" was saying not only to yield to superior force, but to not even attempt to equalize that force. If this was his true outlook, why was he bothering to teach intro level "self defense" courses? Ostensibly, their purpose is to allow one to defend ones self by teaching special skills that will balance out the attacker's presumed experience with violence. But as you (and I) have pointed out, such a low level of training is likely to INCREASE, not decrease, the odds of getting hurt. So why is he teaching something that he KNOWS will likely get people hurt worse, but counseling AGAINST carrying a firearm?
The reality is that, here and now (and not in some Utopia that never existed and will never exist), force and violence can and will be visited upon people, whether they like it or not. It waxes and wanes, but it will ALWAYS be there. There have been a few posts regarding how Europe isn't like that, or how it is only in the States that there are such levels of violence. While it may be true that there is more violence in the US, does that mean that there are no rapes in the EU? No murders? No muggings, no robberies? Rioters burned a significant portion of France a few years ago - no one died, but residents lived in fear for a few weeks. Is this not the use of force to affect other people's lives?
Telling people that they cannot defend themselves is sometimes the cold truth; telling people they *should* not defend themselves is corrupt; telling people they MAY not defend themselves is evil.
Okay, I'll bite. Point by point:
"I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?"
"Yes. Why? Because I don't KNOW that he is only there for the TV - he could be there for my daughter or my wife or me. Apparently you would be willing to wait and ask him what his intentions are. Good luck with that.
"And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?"
Huh? It appears that your premise is that if you "just cooperate" or if the intruder feels you are not a threat, then you won't get killed. First, I'd like to see some evidence of this, not just some theoretical logic train. Second, you act as if getting killed is the only violence that matters. Is not breaking into your domicile a violent act? Is not pulling a gun and threatening you a violent act? Is not forcing your cooperation with the threat of force a violent act? You seem willing to allows all kinds of violence against you, as long as it doesn't affect your physical person. Do some research on PTSD - it doesn't take physical injury to be damaged by violence.
And my favorite:
"I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.
He said - give them your wallet.
Guy - And if I had a gun?
Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.
Real life isn't like the movies."
So you took a self defense course where you were told NOT to defend yourself? Why did you bother? What was his advise if the mugger was unarmed? Fight back then? Where is your limit?
Let me clue you in - real life isn't like the dojo. If you are worried about your physical safety, DO NOT try hand to hand combat with an unknown opponent based on a "self defense course". You WILL feel pain, get injured, and possibly die. So if anyone asks for your wallet, just give it to him, armed or not, because if someone is willing to demand what is not theirs, they are more likely than you to be able to back that demand up with force. You can submit to others using force upon you, or not. But if you choose to submit, don't pretend that you are somehow morally superior or tactically better than those who choose not to submit.
Best one I ever played was called "Criss-Cross" sit/stand/lounge in a circle, and a person takes 2 empty cups and hold them in any one of a number of configurations, and announces "Crossed" or "Uncrossed". Then those who know the rules determine if the person is correct or incorrect, and if they are incorrect, they drink. The object of the game is to determine the rules for whether one should announce "Crossed" or "Uncrossed".
Hints:
1) It's not obvious.
2) Those who know the criteria will try to mislead those who don't.
3) Some folks will never pick up on it.
"releases based on a schedule (1 major release every 6 months, 1 release with long term support every 2 years), not when software is completely "ready". The merits of this can be argued by better geeks than I..."
I've always found it curious that the geek world seems to think it impossible to release 100% complete projects on a predetermined schedule. Other industries seem to do it with no problem.
"They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics..."
Riiiight. What color is the sky in the US that you live in?
Aside from the fact that the Democrats have adopted "Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics" with the fervor of alcoholics attending a free kegger, there's the fact that the Democrats don't HAVE another Roosevelt, nor will there probably ever be one again. And, despite the hysterical shrieking in the media, we are not even close to a depression by any objective measure. Finally, the Democrats of today are NOT those of the 30's and 40's - labor union membership is a fraction of what it was, and minorities actually participate in politics, unlike before.
If the majority of Democratic activists hold the same view as in the parent post, I can't see a Democratic re-ascendancy for a long, long time.
"That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun."
Assuming that could occur, why would the offer be accepted by either candidate? Being the VP is pretty much a dead-end job politically - you won't be elected President, because you can't claim the administration's success but you will get saddled with its liabilities (ref Al Gore).
Obama is at the beginning of his political career - why would he bother cutting it short? He gets another shot in 4 years, 8 if Hillary wins.
As for Hillary, she spent 40 years playing second banana to her philandering, ideologically soft husband, and now SHE is in front. Does anyone really expect her to voluntarily be placed in another man's shadow?
And then there's the problem of change. The common political wisdom is that folks want change - hence the political viability of either a black president or a woman president. But a ticket with both? Too much. Just too much change all at once.
It won't be a parallel internet until it too is saturated with porn.
(Unless it's like the parallel Goatee Universe in ST:TOS. In which case all the women will be dressed opaquely from head to toe? Or they will all have beards?)
"Anyone that goes into business with a family member...is a fool."
Fixed that for ya'.
How could eBay perform a hostile takeover? I believe the balance of Craigslist stock is privately held, and NOT on the open market. I don't think eBay can force someone to sell stock to them.
That being said, I think this is the long delayed consequences of selling that stake to eBay in the first place. Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS). I think eBay bought in years ago expecting to cash in on the big IPO, which never happened, or reap dividends when Craigslist started accepting ads, which it didn't. Now they want to use their minority share position to force the Craigslist management to run things the way eBay wants it.
I hope Craigslist crushes them, but I'm not betting on it.
Yes, Sony finally won one of their format wars. Finally, after years of failing to achieve market dominance, they have a success.
Now what?
They have lots of experience making money with consumer electronics that leverage open formats - Walkman, Discman, and the metric assloads of VHS and DVD players they have sold. They have ZERO experience leveraging a market dominant position into profit.
Their attitude seems to have been "We make X dollars with Y percent of the market. So we will make X*(1/Y) dollars with 100% of the market." They ignore the case where the market with open standards is (1/Y) times BIGGER than the whole market with proprietary standards.
They are like the ass who goes out with the gang and always orders the personal pizza because they want it just the way they want, even though no one else wants it that way. He doesn't see that if he had pitched in he could have gotten a slice of the giant sized pie and still eaten more for less money than he paid for the pie that is "all his."
"What kind of data that will be lost otherwise do we have to back-up for posterity?"
Porn.
It a thousand years it will be the height of kinky to jerk off to pictures of women who only have 2 breasts. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/