My friend recently bought the new Volvo SUV. Volvo treated him to a rather fun event where he went to the California Speedway in Fontana, California and was allowed to test the various safety features of his car on a closed course. One of the things he was allowed to do was drive the car at 50 miles per hour, and then yank on the steering wheel as hard as he could to the left. Normally this would cause any vehicle to roll, or otherwise lose control. The Volvo simply ignored him, and only allowed him to turn as much as was safe for the speed. I guess the theory is that it is better to hit whatever you are trying to avoid than to roll over.
What if what you are trying to avoid is a gaoline truck? Or a 1000 foot drop? Or a six year old?
I'm wondering if you are the one confused about the term "theory". In your definition, "theory" only applies to ideas to explain how or why something exists. In your mind, we can't theorize about whether or not something exists at all. Obviously, the term "theory" can be used both for speculation on how or why something exists, as well as for speculation on if something exists at all.
It is not a proven fact that humans evolved from other species. The evidence suggests that humans have changed significantly over the years. This might mean we evolved from another species, (Darwin's theory). This might mean we have always been a separate and distinct species that has been evolving on its own. I suppose in my post I should have said, "Evolution, (defined as humans evolving from other species), is theory taught in our schools as fact..."
Global Warming is not fact. At least not in the context it is presented by the mass media and United Nations. The temperature of the Earth fluctuates, this is fact. The "point of (some) dispute" is also, is this temperature change something we need to be concerned about or is it a natural part of how our world works?
Suspicions should be raised if all the "scientists" who dispute this happen to have a vested interest like, oh, being paid by fossil fuel companies.
Suspicions should also be raised if all the "scientists" who don't dispute this happen to be anti-corporation, anti-meat, and anti-automobile.
there is some credence to the fact that nearly all of the scientists who state that global warming is 'not a problem' all work for large chemical companies, whereas most of the scientists pointing out the problem often do their research for little or no money. But this is a different topic entirely. *grin*
Obviously it is important to consider bias when looking at evidence. Although you could assume that money biases the "chemical companies" scientists, an almost religious hatred of corporations, meat-eaters, and automobiles is quite an impetus for the "save the world" scientists to work for nothing.
I agree with your position, however. The scientific community is not well represented by the mass media. (Or the school districts for that matter...) Politics, unfortunately, skew the information presented to the masses. And unfortunately, there are scientists, paid and unpaid, who are willing to make an observation about an unscientific study on behalf of some organization, company, or politician, who want to make some political statement, or influence our legislative process, when they know full well their observation will be touted as fact by CNN.
In the limited amount of time that I was able to devote to a post on this topic, I suppose I did not phrase my comments sufficiently. So they could be interpreted to be trying to lump evolution in with Junk Science. I apologize for this. It was not intentional.
I was only observing that how science is communicated to the world at large is not free from political entanglement. I probably should have taken more time to separate my argument about evolution from my arugment about global warming
I think the theory of evolution should be taught in our schools. But I have elementary age children, and they bring home textbooks and handouts that teach evolution as if there was no debate surrounding it whatsoever. As if there were no unanswered questions of how humans came to be so distinctly different from other species.
I'm sure in high school the vagaries and disputes regarding the evolutionary theory will be addressed in better detail, but in elementary school, where kids tend to believe whatever they are taught without much question, evolution is taught as absolute fact. (And this is AFTER my children learned about the scientific method, and have done experiments and at least generally understand the difference between a theory and a law.)
Gravity is self-evident. It obviously exists and the only question left is how does it work. This is different from evolution. It is obvious that humans exist, but it is not blatantly obvious that we must therefore have evolved from some other species. It is possible that the human species is, and always has been, separate and distinct from all other species. I agree there is a lot of evidence that shows that humans have developed and changed over the years, but the idea that humans evolved from some other species is still just speculation. So, teaching our children that there is definitely a force that holds our feet to the ground, and that we call this force gravity, makes sense. It's obviously true. But teaching our children that we evolved from other species, requires a little more responsibility on our part. We must admit that we don't really know, but this is our best speculation based upon the evidence we have.
Some people choose to believe in creation based only upon an interpretation of the Bible and a belief in a supernatural creator who, by being supernatural, is not restrained by the limitations of the physical world he allegedly created. I 100% agree that this cannot be pedalled as a scientific theory. I certainly did not intend to suggest that it should. I would even concede that it shouldn't be taught in public schools. But I also don't fault people for believing in such things in the absence of empirical evidence. There are a great number of unexplained phenomena in this world...
I was simply making the observation that people who believe in creation aren't "in a twist" because they can't prove their belief, but because evolution is taught in our schools as if it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. There are wackos out there, and I don't pay them much mind, but some creationists simply want to hold the scientific community, and those that communicate their opinions and discoveries, to a strict standard. I think this is in everyone's best interest.
In my bedroom right now I have a nearly complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanica. It is something like 50 volumes. Its a few years old, but someone gave it to me for free, so I took it. I'm going to sell it this weekend at a garage sale, because I simply don't have room for it, and the information is outdated, and the good information is too difficult to look up.
The Internet is not a decent replacement however. The information is too unreliable for quick reference.
I suppose I will someday buy an encyclopedia on CD or DVD. I just remember that the free version of Encarta that came with my computer sucked.
While I cannot dispute your assertion that creationists and flat-earth types get upset because you don't accept their beliefs in the absence of scientific evidence, it must be noted that popular opinion, especially political correctness, has shaped a great number of the scientific debates facing our society today. Evolution is theory taught in our schools as fact, this is what really gets those of us who believe in creation or creational-evolution "in a twist". The value of the food pyramid is another area where popular opinion and politics has led to our children being indoctrinated to believe something that just doesn't hold up to scientific investigation. Global warming is another issue. There are many many scientists who dispute the alleged "scientific evidence" to support the idea that global warming is a threat, but in the mainstream press, global warming is presented as undisputed fact. Reliance on "Junk Science" is a huge problem internationally and here in the US. I believe in relying upon empirical evidence to support our beliefs in this world, but I don't share your naivete that the scientific community is doing a good job governing itself and protecting its integrity through consensus based only on scientific evidence.
The label absolutely gets their money no matter what happens, because the artist is liable for the production costs and must pay it back no matter what.
This is not always true. Contracts vary depending on many factors.
They also cannot declare bankruptcy. So if they end up getting their Mcdonald's wages or any future album sales garnished, taht's all well and good with the label, because they *will* collect.
They most certainly can declare bankruptcy. The record labels are just like any other creditor. You can file bankruptcy. Where are you getting your information?
You also fail to understand that even when bands are wildly successful, they often end up in arrears to the record companies precisely because of the structure of tehse agreements. NO the label takes 0 chance on anyone, period.
If they wind up in arrears to the record companies when they are "wildly successful" it is because of poor money management.
The fact of the matter is that the record companies do make the majority of the profits, and take the majority of the risk. But the fact still remains, the artists make more money than they should in any event. Musicians, actors, and athletes are getting paid for doing what they love, and should be grateful they don't have to go get a real job like the rest of us.
I think $12.00 is too much for a CD, but I won't buy the argument that we shouldn't buy CD's because the poor pampered artists are getting ripped off.
I was in California, but it seemed like gasoline cost around $1.75/gallon for regular
I live in California. Regular Unleaded is running about $2.09 right now. However, you can't really use that as a price indicator. Gasoline prices in the US and in Germany are inflated by taxes and environmental regulations.
I'm in the America, that for the most part, has very just and appropriate laws. True, there are a lot of laws that need to be fixed, including the VERY OFF TOPIC hemp laws. I still think that passing laws banning something good because a few people may do something bad, is unamerican. It is still unamerican even if a few laws got through the system that need to be repealed. I'm much happier here, wishing we had legalized hemp, than in any other country that legalizes it.
There are facts that suggest that in some cases, broadband may actually *decrease* productivity.
Broadband doesn't kill productivity, people kill productivity.
If a workers' job duties involve accessing the Internet, then providing a faster connection will NEVER, in any circumstance, cause a decrease in productivity related to that job duty. If a worker can access tools and information previously not available to him that make doing his job easier, then productivity will increase even if he spends more time online than before.
If a worker ignores his job duties to browse the Internet, the worker, not the broadband access, is causing the decrease in productivity. Discipline the employee, or replace him with someone with a real work ethic, and problem solved. Productivity will increase.
Broadband is a simple demand/supply problem. Very well understood problem. What broadband needs is better applications if it wants to be taken up.
Two years ago I rarely used the Internet at all. It took too long to connect, and then wait for pages to load. I often forget to check my email except every other day or so. At work I was not allowed to use the Internet, so I didn't.
Now I have broadband at home, and a more lenient employer. I have no idea where my phonebook is, haven't dialed 411 in months, and rarely speak with a vendor. My buxom wife can now find clothes in her size online since walk-in stores only cater to flat-chested waifs. Movie tickets are secure before I leave the house. My bills are paid online. I rent movies from Netflix. Heck, I've even launched my own website. I don't download porn, I don't download music. I do download drivers and software. I do transfer files from home to work by email.
The fact is, most people don't realize how useful the Internet is once you have 24/7 uninterrupted access to it. A lot of people still fear their computers and think they can't use something as complicated as the Internet. This is changing over time. A lot of our friends have started signing up because they see us do it.
Demand is increasing. Cost is reducing. Sophistication of even the shyest housewives and elderly people is rising. And the children are growing up and don't want to use their parent's dial up. It is a broadband world and there is nothing the RIAA can do to stop it...
I simply disagree. In my neighborhood DSL is not yet available. Only recently has the cable company offered access. For years I was relegated to dial up, often at only 24600kbps!
Not only did it take FOREVER to download the email, 90% of which was SPAM, but anytime I needed to browse the Internet for any reason, it was excruciatingly slow. Downloading drivers or other software was usually impossible as my ISP would log me out before the download was complete, or when complete the download would be corrupted. And it tied up my phone line.
I would have paid just about ANYTHING to get my broadband, and I consider what I am paying a bargain. It's only a few dollars more than I was paying MSN.
Those publishers of digital music are trying to offer an alternative we've all been screaming for for years... do we really want to turn them off of it now?
As long as the music publishers were insisting we purchase CDs full of crappy songs just to get the one we want, I have never had a problem with downloading the music peer to peer. But now that they are being reasonable, and offering music for a fair price, piecemeal, I find it hard to justify continued peer to peer downloads of music I have never paid for.
But if I did purchase one song, I would expect to have full ownership rights. I would expect to be able to resell that one song, even for a profit should it prove to have gone up in value. I would expect the right to give my song away as a gift, will it to my children, or borrow against the value of it. This does not hurt an artist, in my opinion.
If the songs themselves have value, then you are right. This is four people ripping off the record label. So, since it is impossible to enforce the laws against this, should we then say it is illegal for any group of people to chip in and buy a CD and then share custody of it without making copies?
What if you have one CD and use a splitter so two people can listen to it at the same time. Should they both have to pay full price for the CD?
I understand why the RIAA is concerned, I really do. But the absurdity of insisting that you don't own the songs you purchase, can't share them or copy them, or resell them, is simply absurd. Where do you draw the line?
One thing I have learned working in a law office all these years is that NOTHING is set in stone just because it is in writing. A contract can be voided, in whole or in part, for a great number of reasons. The interpretation of a contract is not always decided in the context the writer intended either. And if a contract violates laws granted to people by statute, rarely does the contract prevail, unless the person losing rights expressly waives the right and cites the statute listed.
You know when you park your car in the parking garage and they hand you a ticket that "limits their liability". You can still sue them even though it says, "By accepting this ticket you agree that the garage is not responsible for damage to your vehicle." They can't ask you waive your right to collect damages caused by their negligence. TOS work under the same principle. You just can't waive some of your rights.
Most people don't consider their music collection to be an investment. But some people do. Vintage vinyl albums have been a commodity for years. Some records are even printed in limited amounts so they would be considered "collectors items". Collectors items are designed to "go up in value" which assumes that they will be sold some day.
If the recording industry is going to insist that MP3s have a cash value, then the laws of economics are going to apply to that value. Some MP3s will be worth more than others. Some will be in more demand than others. And people's collection of MP3s will have value as well. Some of this value will even come from the amount of time it takes to locate and download the music.
A collection of music will be willed to some people's children. Some will be given as gifts. Wives will take 1/2 of a man's collection when they get divorced. All of it will have value.
The RIAA cannot argue from one side of their mouth that their product has value in digital form, and then restrict free trade of it from the other side.
It is true that it would be near impossible to enforce this. A person could sell a copy and keep the original, and barring a legal seizure of his computer no-one would ever know.
This is just like insider trading laws. Insider trading happens all the time and it is near impossible to prove. Insider trading should be illegal, and is. If we argue that we shouldn't be allowed to resell MP3s because some people may not delete the original, then we will have to argue that no-one should be allowed to resell stocks because some people may only buy after engaging in insider trading.
You don't prohibit freedoms for law abiding citizens because it will be near impossible to prosecute law breakers. It's unamerican.
You seem to be presuminng that good teaching is not against the rules.
I agree. What one elected school board member thinks is good teaching, another will think is grounds for a criminal investigation.
Teachers are afraid to give kindergartners hugs because they might be accused of molestation. Likewise, other teachers get fired for spanking the butt of the kid who's stealing lunch money.
But, when it comes down to it. A teacher shouldn't expect to have privacy in a public classroom. It would bother me to know my kid's teacher wanted the door shut and no-one looking over his shoulder. But I can see why the teachers are hesitant about letting themselves be filmed when from one election to the next you have no idea how your innocent actions are going to be interpreted. When it comes to the safety of our kids, the teacher's safety has to be the safety that is sacrificed.
I don't know if/. avoids these types of stories because of any bias, but as far as the news media is concerned, I believe its not an issue of whether or not it is "good copy" as much as whether or not it will support the liberal agenda of the mainstream media? Or, in other words, can we use this information to hurt the Republicans or help the Democrats? The green-party people may not "throw their votes away" on their own candidates, but they will be damned if they vote for a Republican. So anything pro-environment is pro-Democrat in the eyes of the liberal press.
Put the huge success of news organizations like FoxNews show that if you dump the liberal bias, and report the facts without distortion, you can still "sell" the news. In fact, it appears they are doing it better.
The problem isn't that news organizations feel that reporting the truth, without extremism, isn't interesting. The problem is, when the undistorted facts might support a conservative or moderate point of view, the liberal media feels they have the right, nay obligation, to distort the facts because they "know" what is "right" for everyone else and can't risk the chance that the uneducated masses might come to a contrary conclusion if allowed to just see the facts as they really are.
I agree that we should develop sustainable resources because they are sustainable. I think this makes sense economically and is the best way to be a good steward of our resources. But I believe the free market will accomplish that on its own, without government intervention, and even in the face of the so-called evil oil companies. And I believe whatever we end up with will be better than what we would have if we were forced to assume that there is no better alternative than fuel cells or hybrids, or solar energy. And I believe in the meantime that I should be allowed to use my SUV to go to Home Depot because I can't fit lumber in my freakin' Plymouth Neon, without being villified.
Personally, I'm fine with the over saturation of advertisments in American television. I think with the advent of Tivo and similar systems we will finally see the end of commercials. We are just going to fast forward anyway, so as this technology becomes more prevalent the value of spending millions of dollars to produce 30 to 90 second spots will diminish. I'd gladly take the three icon-ish adverts on the stats line of the Laker's game, that sit through commercials. The fact that advertisers are paying more for product placement now and just getting their logo displayed during the program will be a blessing in the long run.
Actually, 50,456,062 people voted for George W. Bush. 30 states, MORE THAN HALF, voted for Bush. And of course, the Electoral College voted for Bush.
This decision doesn't take away anyone's rights. This woman is still covered by workers' compensation at her employer's expense. (And Toyota is NOT insured, they pay for their own claims.) All this case says, is that Toyota doesn't have to invent a job for this woman to do. They still have to pay her for her disability, pay for her vocational retraining, and pay for all of her medical treatment.
And, of course, this is a Supreme Court decision made by Judges. The Democrats continue to block George Bush's appointees, so you can't blame this one on him.
It's a good court decision clarifying an idiotic, over-generalized, poorly written, liberal law.
ADA doesn't cover anything. It is an anti-discrimination law which is intended to make companies and individuals take a serious look at their ability to hire, or continue to employ, people with disabilities.
If you are injured on the job and have a resulting partial disability, you continue to be covered under workers' compensation laws.
If you are injured due to someone else's negligence, then you are "covered" by suing them or filing a claim with their insurance company.
If you are injured by chance, act of God, or your own negligence, you are covered by your own insurance, or you are on your own.
Is rocket fuel suddenly good for the environment? Aren't they concerned about congestion around our planet? Can't they get all of this information from the ground? The tree-huggers who put this thing up probably drove to the launch site in their SUV's!
You can bet this satellite will be used to spy on corporations and individuals. Before too long we will be getting notices in the mail saying we are using too much lighter fluid on our backyard barbeques!!!
Slashdot Mirror
My friend recently bought the new Volvo SUV. Volvo treated him to a rather fun event where he went to the California Speedway in Fontana, California and was allowed to test the various safety features of his car on a closed course. One of the things he was allowed to do was drive the car at 50 miles per hour, and then yank on the steering wheel as hard as he could to the left. Normally this would cause any vehicle to roll, or otherwise lose control. The Volvo simply ignored him, and only allowed him to turn as much as was safe for the speed. I guess the theory is that it is better to hit whatever you are trying to avoid than to roll over.
What if what you are trying to avoid is a gaoline truck? Or a 1000 foot drop? Or a six year old?
It is not a proven fact that humans evolved from other species. The evidence suggests that humans have changed significantly over the years. This might mean we evolved from another species, (Darwin's theory). This might mean we have always been a separate and distinct species that has been evolving on its own. I suppose in my post I should have said, "Evolution, (defined as humans evolving from other species), is theory taught in our schools as fact..."
Global Warming is not fact. At least not in the context it is presented by the mass media and United Nations. The temperature of the Earth fluctuates, this is fact. The "point of (some) dispute" is also, is this temperature change something we need to be concerned about or is it a natural part of how our world works?
Suspicions should also be raised if all the "scientists" who don't dispute this happen to be anti-corporation, anti-meat, and anti-automobile.
I agree with your position, however. The scientific community is not well represented by the mass media. (Or the school districts for that matter...) Politics, unfortunately, skew the information presented to the masses. And unfortunately, there are scientists, paid and unpaid, who are willing to make an observation about an unscientific study on behalf of some organization, company, or politician, who want to make some political statement, or influence our legislative process, when they know full well their observation will be touted as fact by CNN.
In the limited amount of time that I was able to devote to a post on this topic, I suppose I did not phrase my comments sufficiently. So they could be interpreted to be trying to lump evolution in with Junk Science. I apologize for this. It was not intentional.
I was only observing that how science is communicated to the world at large is not free from political entanglement. I probably should have taken more time to separate my argument about evolution from my arugment about global warming
I think the theory of evolution should be taught in our schools. But I have elementary age children, and they bring home textbooks and handouts that teach evolution as if there was no debate surrounding it whatsoever. As if there were no unanswered questions of how humans came to be so distinctly different from other species.
I'm sure in high school the vagaries and disputes regarding the evolutionary theory will be addressed in better detail, but in elementary school, where kids tend to believe whatever they are taught without much question, evolution is taught as absolute fact. (And this is AFTER my children learned about the scientific method, and have done experiments and at least generally understand the difference between a theory and a law.)
Gravity is self-evident. It obviously exists and the only question left is how does it work. This is different from evolution. It is obvious that humans exist, but it is not blatantly obvious that we must therefore have evolved from some other species. It is possible that the human species is, and always has been, separate and distinct from all other species. I agree there is a lot of evidence that shows that humans have developed and changed over the years, but the idea that humans evolved from some other species is still just speculation. So, teaching our children that there is definitely a force that holds our feet to the ground, and that we call this force gravity, makes sense. It's obviously true. But teaching our children that we evolved from other species, requires a little more responsibility on our part. We must admit that we don't really know, but this is our best speculation based upon the evidence we have.
Some people choose to believe in creation based only upon an interpretation of the Bible and a belief in a supernatural creator who, by being supernatural, is not restrained by the limitations of the physical world he allegedly created. I 100% agree that this cannot be pedalled as a scientific theory. I certainly did not intend to suggest that it should. I would even concede that it shouldn't be taught in public schools. But I also don't fault people for believing in such things in the absence of empirical evidence. There are a great number of unexplained phenomena in this world...
I was simply making the observation that people who believe in creation aren't "in a twist" because they can't prove their belief, but because evolution is taught in our schools as if it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. There are wackos out there, and I don't pay them much mind, but some creationists simply want to hold the scientific community, and those that communicate their opinions and discoveries, to a strict standard. I think this is in everyone's best interest.
In my bedroom right now I have a nearly complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanica. It is something like 50 volumes. Its a few years old, but someone gave it to me for free, so I took it. I'm going to sell it this weekend at a garage sale, because I simply don't have room for it, and the information is outdated, and the good information is too difficult to look up. The Internet is not a decent replacement however. The information is too unreliable for quick reference. I suppose I will someday buy an encyclopedia on CD or DVD. I just remember that the free version of Encarta that came with my computer sucked.
While I cannot dispute your assertion that creationists and flat-earth types get upset because you don't accept their beliefs in the absence of scientific evidence, it must be noted that popular opinion, especially political correctness, has shaped a great number of the scientific debates facing our society today. Evolution is theory taught in our schools as fact, this is what really gets those of us who believe in creation or creational-evolution "in a twist". The value of the food pyramid is another area where popular opinion and politics has led to our children being indoctrinated to believe something that just doesn't hold up to scientific investigation. Global warming is another issue. There are many many scientists who dispute the alleged "scientific evidence" to support the idea that global warming is a threat, but in the mainstream press, global warming is presented as undisputed fact. Reliance on "Junk Science" is a huge problem internationally and here in the US. I believe in relying upon empirical evidence to support our beliefs in this world, but I don't share your naivete that the scientific community is doing a good job governing itself and protecting its integrity through consensus based only on scientific evidence.
The fact of the matter is that the record companies do make the majority of the profits, and take the majority of the risk. But the fact still remains, the artists make more money than they should in any event. Musicians, actors, and athletes are getting paid for doing what they love, and should be grateful they don't have to go get a real job like the rest of us.
I think $12.00 is too much for a CD, but I won't buy the argument that we shouldn't buy CD's because the poor pampered artists are getting ripped off.
I'm in the America, that for the most part, has very just and appropriate laws. True, there are a lot of laws that need to be fixed, including the VERY OFF TOPIC hemp laws. I still think that passing laws banning something good because a few people may do something bad, is unamerican. It is still unamerican even if a few laws got through the system that need to be repealed. I'm much happier here, wishing we had legalized hemp, than in any other country that legalizes it.
If a workers' job duties involve accessing the Internet, then providing a faster connection will NEVER, in any circumstance, cause a decrease in productivity related to that job duty. If a worker can access tools and information previously not available to him that make doing his job easier, then productivity will increase even if he spends more time online than before.
If a worker ignores his job duties to browse the Internet, the worker, not the broadband access, is causing the decrease in productivity. Discipline the employee, or replace him with someone with a real work ethic, and problem solved. Productivity will increase.
Now I have broadband at home, and a more lenient employer. I have no idea where my phonebook is, haven't dialed 411 in months, and rarely speak with a vendor. My buxom wife can now find clothes in her size online since walk-in stores only cater to flat-chested waifs. Movie tickets are secure before I leave the house. My bills are paid online. I rent movies from Netflix. Heck, I've even launched my own website. I don't download porn, I don't download music. I do download drivers and software. I do transfer files from home to work by email.
The fact is, most people don't realize how useful the Internet is once you have 24/7 uninterrupted access to it. A lot of people still fear their computers and think they can't use something as complicated as the Internet. This is changing over time. A lot of our friends have started signing up because they see us do it.
Demand is increasing. Cost is reducing. Sophistication of even the shyest housewives and elderly people is rising. And the children are growing up and don't want to use their parent's dial up. It is a broadband world and there is nothing the RIAA can do to stop it...
Not only did it take FOREVER to download the email, 90% of which was SPAM, but anytime I needed to browse the Internet for any reason, it was excruciatingly slow. Downloading drivers or other software was usually impossible as my ISP would log me out before the download was complete, or when complete the download would be corrupted. And it tied up my phone line.
I would have paid just about ANYTHING to get my broadband, and I consider what I am paying a bargain. It's only a few dollars more than I was paying MSN.
If the songs themselves have value, then you are right. This is four people ripping off the record label. So, since it is impossible to enforce the laws against this, should we then say it is illegal for any group of people to chip in and buy a CD and then share custody of it without making copies?
What if you have one CD and use a splitter so two people can listen to it at the same time. Should they both have to pay full price for the CD?
I understand why the RIAA is concerned, I really do. But the absurdity of insisting that you don't own the songs you purchase, can't share them or copy them, or resell them, is simply absurd. Where do you draw the line?
One thing I have learned working in a law office all these years is that NOTHING is set in stone just because it is in writing. A contract can be voided, in whole or in part, for a great number of reasons. The interpretation of a contract is not always decided in the context the writer intended either. And if a contract violates laws granted to people by statute, rarely does the contract prevail, unless the person losing rights expressly waives the right and cites the statute listed.
You know when you park your car in the parking garage and they hand you a ticket that "limits their liability". You can still sue them even though it says, "By accepting this ticket you agree that the garage is not responsible for damage to your vehicle." They can't ask you waive your right to collect damages caused by their negligence. TOS work under the same principle. You just can't waive some of your rights.
Most people don't consider their music collection to be an investment. But some people do. Vintage vinyl albums have been a commodity for years. Some records are even printed in limited amounts so they would be considered "collectors items". Collectors items are designed to "go up in value" which assumes that they will be sold some day.
If the recording industry is going to insist that MP3s have a cash value, then the laws of economics are going to apply to that value. Some MP3s will be worth more than others. Some will be in more demand than others. And people's collection of MP3s will have value as well. Some of this value will even come from the amount of time it takes to locate and download the music.
A collection of music will be willed to some people's children. Some will be given as gifts. Wives will take 1/2 of a man's collection when they get divorced. All of it will have value.
The RIAA cannot argue from one side of their mouth that their product has value in digital form, and then restrict free trade of it from the other side.
It is true that it would be near impossible to enforce this. A person could sell a copy and keep the original, and barring a legal seizure of his computer no-one would ever know. This is just like insider trading laws. Insider trading happens all the time and it is near impossible to prove. Insider trading should be illegal, and is. If we argue that we shouldn't be allowed to resell MP3s because some people may not delete the original, then we will have to argue that no-one should be allowed to resell stocks because some people may only buy after engaging in insider trading. You don't prohibit freedoms for law abiding citizens because it will be near impossible to prosecute law breakers. It's unamerican.
I agree. What one elected school board member thinks is good teaching, another will think is grounds for a criminal investigation.
Teachers are afraid to give kindergartners hugs because they might be accused of molestation. Likewise, other teachers get fired for spanking the butt of the kid who's stealing lunch money.
But, when it comes down to it. A teacher shouldn't expect to have privacy in a public classroom. It would bother me to know my kid's teacher wanted the door shut and no-one looking over his shoulder. But I can see why the teachers are hesitant about letting themselves be filmed when from one election to the next you have no idea how your innocent actions are going to be interpreted. When it comes to the safety of our kids, the teacher's safety has to be the safety that is sacrificed.
I don't know if /. avoids these types of stories because of any bias, but as far as the news media is concerned, I believe its not an issue of whether or not it is "good copy" as much as whether or not it will support the liberal agenda of the mainstream media? Or, in other words, can we use this information to hurt the Republicans or help the Democrats? The green-party people may not "throw their votes away" on their own candidates, but they will be damned if they vote for a Republican. So anything pro-environment is pro-Democrat in the eyes of the liberal press.
Put the huge success of news organizations like FoxNews show that if you dump the liberal bias, and report the facts without distortion, you can still "sell" the news. In fact, it appears they are doing it better.
The problem isn't that news organizations feel that reporting the truth, without extremism, isn't interesting. The problem is, when the undistorted facts might support a conservative or moderate point of view, the liberal media feels they have the right, nay obligation, to distort the facts because they "know" what is "right" for everyone else and can't risk the chance that the uneducated masses might come to a contrary conclusion if allowed to just see the facts as they really are.
I agree that we should develop sustainable resources because they are sustainable. I think this makes sense economically and is the best way to be a good steward of our resources. But I believe the free market will accomplish that on its own, without government intervention, and even in the face of the so-called evil oil companies. And I believe whatever we end up with will be better than what we would have if we were forced to assume that there is no better alternative than fuel cells or hybrids, or solar energy. And I believe in the meantime that I should be allowed to use my SUV to go to Home Depot because I can't fit lumber in my freakin' Plymouth Neon, without being villified.
Personally, I'm fine with the over saturation of advertisments in American television. I think with the advent of Tivo and similar systems we will finally see the end of commercials. We are just going to fast forward anyway, so as this technology becomes more prevalent the value of spending millions of dollars to produce 30 to 90 second spots will diminish. I'd gladly take the three icon-ish adverts on the stats line of the Laker's game, that sit through commercials. The fact that advertisers are paying more for product placement now and just getting their logo displayed during the program will be a blessing in the long run.
Actually, 50,456,062 people voted for George W. Bush. 30 states, MORE THAN HALF, voted for Bush. And of course, the Electoral College voted for Bush. This decision doesn't take away anyone's rights. This woman is still covered by workers' compensation at her employer's expense. (And Toyota is NOT insured, they pay for their own claims.) All this case says, is that Toyota doesn't have to invent a job for this woman to do. They still have to pay her for her disability, pay for her vocational retraining, and pay for all of her medical treatment. And, of course, this is a Supreme Court decision made by Judges. The Democrats continue to block George Bush's appointees, so you can't blame this one on him. It's a good court decision clarifying an idiotic, over-generalized, poorly written, liberal law.
ADA doesn't cover anything. It is an anti-discrimination law which is intended to make companies and individuals take a serious look at their ability to hire, or continue to employ, people with disabilities. If you are injured on the job and have a resulting partial disability, you continue to be covered under workers' compensation laws. If you are injured due to someone else's negligence, then you are "covered" by suing them or filing a claim with their insurance company. If you are injured by chance, act of God, or your own negligence, you are covered by your own insurance, or you are on your own.
Is rocket fuel suddenly good for the environment? Aren't they concerned about congestion around our planet? Can't they get all of this information from the ground? The tree-huggers who put this thing up probably drove to the launch site in their SUV's! You can bet this satellite will be used to spy on corporations and individuals. Before too long we will be getting notices in the mail saying we are using too much lighter fluid on our backyard barbeques!!!