You're well within your rights to just give up and hate the ugly nebulous 'system', but it's just people we're talking here. You're one of them, like it or not. Just because they're outside of your monkeysphere doesn't mean they don't exist or are some 'system' out to get you. You're still one of us, like it or not.
There are those people with power, and those people without. There's a difference between the two.
My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.
By "trying", do you mean they've actually sued you, or are they just writing nasty letters? Because it doesn't cost $100,000 to just stick the nasty letters in a file somewhere in case they actually do sue you.
I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves.
Ah, Jim, if they take the "URL" first and then force the site owner to sue to get it back, that's what we who remember the 20th century call "prior restraint". Generally considered a bad thing where speech is concerned.
Listen buddy, your overall idea is somewhat reasonable but your examples are over the top and make you look like you don't know anything about sports and/or the leagues' copyright concerns. Here, for example, is the actual text you refer to, which goes at the end of NFL games: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."
Which is ridiculous, because, according to them, "accounts of the game" includes someone who was there (or who watched the telecast) describing it, not just accounts of the game done by employees of the NFL or their affiliates.
You can make arguments that "anyone who has a Super Bowl party will get sued!!!! ZOMG!!! ZERG RUSH!!!!!!!" but in the real world this is not what is going to happen, even if it may technically run afoul of the language.
I don't know if they've ever sued, but they have sent C&Ds about it in the past.
Monster Cable Antennas are oxygen free and therefore the waves do not get distorted? (Not even sure if they make antenna products...)
Probably the antenna equivalent is Terk (made by Audiovox). Less overpriced than Monster, but typically less effective than the competition (where Monster is pretty much the same).
Only problem with that is, that not voting isn't really resisting, it's capitulation.
Whether you vote or not really has little to do with whether you are resisting or capitulating.
There is a school of thought which says that if you vote, you're accepting the legitimacy of the system and the outcome and if you lost, you should just sit down and shut up. There is also a school of thought which says that by not voting you are forfeiting your voice and you should just sit down and shut up. Both of these arguments are usually employed by smug supporters of the status quo.
The only way of resisting is voting for someone else (you do know that there are more than two parties in your country, don't you?).
Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.
Or you could, well I don't know, join one of the parties and try to change them from the inside.
You won't be able to attain power within the party without compromising yourself enough so that it's _you_ who changes rather than the party. "Change the system from within" is, again, an argument of smug supporters of the status quo.
Just saying the system sucks because it doesn't do what you want for you, and then not going to vote is just lazy. Resisting means doing something to change things, not just sit and watch. But that's just mho.
It's not laziness to refuse to bother with methods which cannot work. Tilting at windmills is quixotic; arguing with them is a waste of breath. Unless you have some way of getting sand in the bearing or knocking down the base, you're best off just letting the windmill be and working around it the best you can.
Speaking as someone who has been interviewed many times by the FBI re High School friends who were seeking a "Q" clearance, I can say the questions they asked about my friends were not intrusive and related directly to the character, honesty, and truthfulness of the candidate. I realize all of these are now outmoded and tired cliche instead of esteemed and admired character traits but that is the evolution of culture right there.
There's more than one type of investigation. If you get a clearance which requires a lifestyle polygraph, it can get pretty intrusive, Or so I've been told. I don't know if they ask the intrusive questions of others, though, or only the applicant.
As for the Righthaven cases, it appears that many (but not all) of the alleged violations are blatant by most criteria (verbatim reproduction of entire articles), however the amount of actual economic damage done is arguably to zero (a lawsuit over a post on soc.retirement? really??). On the other hand, people should be a bit more careful when posting stuff like that on public forums... probably not the brightest idea...
"People should be a bit more careful" = chilling effect = First Amendment conflict = exactly what Fair Use is supposed to prevent.
In the narrow sense of holding a P.E. (Professional Engineering) license or equivalent, no. But the P.E. does not define the engineer, no matter how many holders of such licenses think it does.
First mention one thing that you benefit that is funded by the government, then offer to give it up, else you are just another selfish fellow shifting costs and burdens to others.
That's nonsense. Suppose we lived in Govertopia. Everyone agreed that the amount of taxes they paid was just right, and the services they received were perfectly fair. Then one day the government raised taxes by 10%, and simultaneously announced that every left-handed white man over the age of 50 gets a membership at a luxury golf resort. Should no one but a left-handed white man over the age of 50 be permitted to object without being considered a selfish fellow shifting costs and burdens to others?
Of course people are more willing to object to services they do not benefit from. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
someone here has a recognizable sig, to the effect of "I like paying taxes; with it I buy civilization" - or to that effect.
or, is common roads, infrastructure and stuff like that too 'commie' for people like you?
the fact that the gov mismanages our funds has nothing to do with the fact that the funds are NEEDED to 'run society'.
You can only milk that one for so far. The dialogue might go something like this
Gov: "We need another $1000 in taxes from you, to build roads, sewers, and the like." Evil anti-civilization nutcase: "WHAT? I'm already paying you $10,000, what are you doing with that?"
Gov: "Well, $4000 went for social security. $2000 for defense. $1500 for welfare for the poor. Another $1500 for welfare for the rich. $2000 for interest on the debt. $1000 for infrastructure. And another $1000 for failed infrastructure project that we ended up canceling."
EACN: Um, that doesn't add up
Gov: Hence the debt. And as you can see, we're a bit short in the infrastructure department, so if you object you're clearly a wild-eyed anarchist fruitcake and we'll burn your house down with you in it. Pay on time and have a nice day.
Being too cheap to purchase the article, I don't see anywhere indicating that A is not a predictor for C. However, even so, in order to tease the two factors apart, you'd need to show that B predicted C even when B occurred without A. It's not enough to show that C is only predicted by A when A is followed by B.
The cyberwar is already ON between state actors. Stuxnet, for instance. Certainly targeted at Iran, almost certainly developed by the US, Israel, or both. There's the attack on Google and other non-Chinese companies from China in 2009 as well.
IMO, now that Stuxnet has paved the way, we WILL see cyberterrorism directed at other SCADA systems.
No, it doesn't. The penalty for infringement is up to 3 years in jail. That's less than "2-12" years.
Up to 5 years for a first offense, up to 10 years for a second or subsequent offense, for willful copyright violation for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Burning torrents to DVDs and selling them would come under this categorization.
The fines are hard to find, they're actually hidden in 18 USC 3571.
If B follows A and C follows B, one hypothesis is that B caused C. Another might be that A caused them both. That the abstract noted that "pathological gaming" was predicted by "weekly gaming time" when high weekly gaming time was one of the elements of pathological gaming does not give me much confidence in the power of the study.
Felony burglarly: State offense, 2-12 years in state prison, plus a $5000 fine. Likely at least two counts because two buildings were involved, but I'd expect the sentences to be served concurrently. Quite likely to be plea-bargained, and parole is available.
Criminal copyright infringement under the No Electronic Theft Act: 5 years imprisonment in pound-me-in-the-ass Federal Prison (plea bargain unlikely and parole unavailable), a fine of up to $250,000, plus civil penalties of up to $100,000 per work infringed.
Neither is likely to be much fun, but it looks like criminal copyright infringement still carries higher penalties. Note that if this is a second offense it goes up to 10 years imprisonment in PMITA Federal Prison.
Exactly what 'victory' did (has) the US achieved in Iraq after all these years (other than to plow US$Billions by the pallet load into it and to kill Saddam)?
The people running Iraq when the war started are not running it any more (most of them are dead), and those running it now are more acceptable to the United States government. That's victory. What more do you want?
If the kids had found a Sawzall in the basement and used it to trash the house do you think the homeowner could hold Milwaukee Electric Tool liable?
You wouldn't think so, but then you see things like the Louisville Slugger case, where the manufacturers of a baseball bat were found liable for the death of someone hit by a batted ball, and you realize anything can happen in the court system.
Don't think so? How about a Gun Manufacturer getting sued because their weapons were used by criminals to commit a crime? That has happened, and is still happening now. The 1-800-ASK-GARY scumbags of the world will go after whoever can pay.
That's not the fault of the ambulance chasers, that's a political matter. The idea isn't to get money for the attorneys, the idea is to make it so risky to make guns that gun manufacturers go out of business, thus banning guns through the back door. Seems unlikely something similar would happen for home automation, at least until Robot Control Incorporated gets going.
The simplest, cheapest and most effective would be two 16 foot high steel fences and a 20 foot section between them full of claymores.
You know, when you start coming up with ideas reminiscent of the Berlin Wall (automatic machine guns rather than claymores, not quite as tall, and a larger space between them), you might consider that you're working for the wrong side.
Slashdot Mirror
There are those people with power, and those people without. There's a difference between the two.
By "trying", do you mean they've actually sued you, or are they just writing nasty letters? Because it doesn't cost $100,000 to just stick the nasty letters in a file somewhere in case they actually do sue you.
Ah, Jim, if they take the "URL" first and then force the site owner to sue to get it back, that's what we who remember the 20th century call "prior restraint". Generally considered a bad thing where speech is concerned.
Which is ridiculous, because, according to them, "accounts of the game" includes someone who was there (or who watched the telecast) describing it, not just accounts of the game done by employees of the NFL or their affiliates.
I don't know if they've ever sued, but they have sent C&Ds about it in the past.
Probably the antenna equivalent is Terk (made by Audiovox). Less overpriced than Monster, but typically less effective than the competition (where Monster is pretty much the same).
Whether you vote or not really has little to do with whether you are resisting or capitulating.
There is a school of thought which says that if you vote, you're accepting the legitimacy of the system and the outcome and if you lost, you should just sit down and shut up. There is also a school of thought which says that by not voting you are forfeiting your voice and you should just sit down and shut up. Both of these arguments are usually employed by smug supporters of the status quo.
Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.
You won't be able to attain power within the party without compromising yourself enough so that it's _you_ who changes rather than the party. "Change the system from within" is, again, an argument of smug supporters of the status quo.
It's not laziness to refuse to bother with methods which cannot work. Tilting at windmills is quixotic; arguing with them is a waste of breath. Unless you have some way of getting sand in the bearing or knocking down the base, you're best off just letting the windmill be and working around it the best you can.
How much rubber hose time? Can we put up a collection to hire the good folks at hired-goons.com? (oh, who am I kidding, I have a Nexus S...)
There's more than one type of investigation. If you get a clearance which requires a lifestyle polygraph, it can get pretty intrusive, Or so I've been told. I don't know if they ask the intrusive questions of others, though, or only the applicant.
"People should be a bit more careful" = chilling effect = First Amendment conflict = exactly what Fair Use is supposed to prevent.
In the narrow sense of holding a P.E. (Professional Engineering) license or equivalent, no. But the P.E. does not define the engineer, no matter how many holders of such licenses think it does.
The SEC has all sorts of regulations meant to "protect" the public. Goldman-Sachs is just trying to obey them.
That's nonsense. Suppose we lived in Govertopia. Everyone agreed that the amount of taxes they paid was just right, and the services they received were perfectly fair. Then one day the government raised taxes by 10%, and simultaneously announced that every left-handed white man over the age of 50 gets a membership at a luxury golf resort. Should no one but a left-handed white man over the age of 50 be permitted to object without being considered a selfish fellow shifting costs and burdens to others?
Of course people are more willing to object to services they do not benefit from. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
Why would anyone abandon a feasible approach for an unfeasible one?
You can only milk that one for so far. The dialogue might go something like this
Gov: "We need another $1000 in taxes from you, to build roads, sewers, and the like."
Evil anti-civilization nutcase: "WHAT? I'm already paying you $10,000, what are you doing with that?"
Gov: "Well, $4000 went for social security. $2000 for defense. $1500 for welfare for the poor. Another $1500 for welfare for the rich. $2000 for interest on the debt. $1000 for infrastructure. And another $1000 for failed infrastructure project that we ended up canceling."
EACN: Um, that doesn't add up
Gov: Hence the debt. And as you can see, we're a bit short in the infrastructure department, so if you object you're clearly a wild-eyed anarchist fruitcake and we'll burn your house down with you in it. Pay on time and have a nice day.
Being too cheap to purchase the article, I don't see anywhere indicating that A is not a predictor for C. However, even so, in order to tease the two factors apart, you'd need to show that B predicted C even when B occurred without A. It's not enough to show that C is only predicted by A when A is followed by B.
The cyberwar is already ON between state actors. Stuxnet, for instance. Certainly targeted at Iran, almost certainly developed by the US, Israel, or both. There's the attack on Google and other non-Chinese companies from China in 2009 as well.
IMO, now that Stuxnet has paved the way, we WILL see cyberterrorism directed at other SCADA systems.
Up to 5 years for a first offense, up to 10 years for a second or subsequent offense, for willful copyright violation for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Burning torrents to DVDs and selling them would come under this categorization.
The fines are hard to find, they're actually hidden in 18 USC 3571.
If B follows A and C follows B, one hypothesis is that B caused C. Another might be that A caused them both. That the abstract noted that "pathological gaming" was predicted by "weekly gaming time" when high weekly gaming time was one of the elements of pathological gaming does not give me much confidence in the power of the study.
1) Microsoft isn't the cult of personality Apple is.
2) Since Gates left, Microsoft has been running on inertia.
Felony burglarly: State offense, 2-12 years in state prison, plus a $5000 fine. Likely at least two counts because two buildings were involved, but I'd expect the sentences to be served concurrently. Quite likely to be plea-bargained, and parole is available.
Criminal copyright infringement under the No Electronic Theft Act: 5 years imprisonment in pound-me-in-the-ass Federal Prison (plea bargain unlikely and parole unavailable), a fine of up to $250,000, plus civil penalties of up to $100,000 per work infringed.
Neither is likely to be much fun, but it looks like criminal copyright infringement still carries higher penalties. Note that if this is a second offense it goes up to 10 years imprisonment in PMITA Federal Prison.
The East German government called the Berlin Wall the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall", and claimed it was for keeping people out.
The people running Iraq when the war started are not running it any more (most of them are dead), and those running it now are more acceptable to the United States government. That's victory. What more do you want?
You wouldn't think so, but then you see things like the Louisville Slugger case, where the manufacturers of a baseball bat were found liable for the death of someone hit by a batted ball, and you realize anything can happen in the court system.
That's not the fault of the ambulance chasers, that's a political matter. The idea isn't to get money for the attorneys, the idea is to make it so risky to make guns that gun manufacturers go out of business, thus banning guns through the back door. Seems unlikely something similar would happen for home automation, at least until Robot Control Incorporated gets going.
You know, when you start coming up with ideas reminiscent of the Berlin Wall (automatic machine guns rather than claymores, not quite as tall, and a larger space between them), you might consider that you're working for the wrong side.