Does their childhood dream actually involve having someone else rip off the artist who created the thing about which they've been dreaming
George Barris has already been well paid for his original work in designing the original car for a specific purpose. Also, according to your logic, Barris should be continuing to pay Ford/Ghia licensing fees for the rights to continue making money from the Futura's design instead of "ripping off the artist" that created it. How much of the replica merchant's licensing fees should actually go to Ford/Ghia, and how much to Barris? After all, the original Futura design is clearly recognizable as the fundamental basis for the '66 Batmobile's shape, and IMO contributes more to the "Batmobile-ness" of the car than anything else.
The problem is based on the US legal system the way to challenge the Constitutionality of these laws is to break them, and then (after a likely horrible reaming by the justice system) appeal to the Supreme court to try to get it overturned.
And of course, you get not a bit more justice than you can afford. I know I don't have the thousands and thousands of dollars to take a case to the Supreme Court. Eventually people will begin to notice that a box of full metal jacket.223 is a whole lot cheaper than a lawyer.
That just says that despite how unhappy the parent poster might be about the state of things, the rest of the world doesn't have enough of a problem with the way the U.S. runs the root servers to actually do anything about it.
It should be about what the jury believes took place, yes, but there should be a process by which a prosecutor or defendant can correct applicable misconceptions.
That would be easier to institute (in the U.S. anyway) if juries were able to ask questions of the participants during the trial, including the attorneys. It's an allowed practice in three states, but it's hardly common across the country.
No more than a cop enforcing a bad law violates the trust society places in him. Jury nullification is part of the checks and balances of our three-branch system of government. The legislature can choose not to pass a bad law, but if they do the executive can choose not to enforce it, and if all else fails the judiciary (via the jury) can choose not to convict under it.
My experience with jury duty was similar. All of the jurors were intelligent and genuinely concerned about arriving at a just verdict. It was a DUI case, and while every single one of us thought the defendant was a scumbag and was pretty sure he had in fact been driving drunk, we also unanimously agreed that the state had failed miserably to meet the burden of proof and that there was enough reasonable doubt to justify a "not guilty" verdict. It wasn't a "CSI" kind of thing either, and wasn't so much for lack of evidence as that the cops dropped the ball pretty much every step of the way and destroyed what should have been a solid case.
And to expand on that, the "government" as an entity should probably be held liable less often than the specific cogs that enabled such an injustice to take place. If you take away the expectation of certain immunity that a cop, prosecutor, or judge has for the consequences of improper actions, and take away the Nuremburg "I was just following orders" defense, they'll start to behave better.
And hey... even at best, installing noisemakers in electric cars just wastes electricity that can be better used to get a person to their destination.
Well, it depends. As long as it uses less power than what's needed to accelerate back to speed after bouncing Grandpa off the hood, it's a net gain, right?
Private corporations have financially invested people - but they are typically not referred to as shareholders.
Yes, they absolutely are. "Shareholder" or "stockholder" has a very specific legal meaning when applied to a corporation, unlike "stakeholder", "owner", or "angel investor". None of those three terms are used to refer to entities that own stock/shares in the articles of incorporation, shareholder's ledger, or other legal paperwork having to do with my corporation, or any other that I've seen.
How in the fuck were the Apple II or the original Mac "leaps forward" of the competition?
Apple II: For one, it came fully assembled with a keyboard, power supply, high-res color graphics, NTSC video output, and a case. Not much else in mid-1977 could make that claim.
Mac: At the time, it was the only usable GUI-based machine available at a reasonable price, and being 68000-based, it had quite a bit more CPU horsepower at its disposal than most other machines, had an 8-bit DAC as standard equipment, onboard SCSI, etc. The Lisa had been out for a short while with a similar feature set, but Apple had priced it outside the reach of most people. IBM's XT couldn't touch it performance-wise, and while IBM had introduced their AT around the same time, it was quite some time before any software could actually take advantage of the 80286 processor to do anything particularly interesting.
I definitely agree that anecdotes aren't data, and all we're really doing here is swapping stories. I've only got three decades working in music as a side gig, but I do have two decades in software engineering and electrical design and repair. I'm glad that you've not had any problems, but I stand by my observations. My MX9000's power supply failed and required me to replace the aforementioned undersized voltage regulators (although the mixer itself appears to be built well), and my 2442 started smoking one day when I turned it on and I found a blackened power supply board in there as well, although I've not yet gotten around to fixing it. Contrast that to my Tascam M-224 that's ancient, but built like a tank and still works just fine, along with the remainder of my gear - the Behringer stuff is all that's ever given me problems. My PX2000 patch bay is junk - there are several jacks (which are largely made of plastic) where you can lightly put your finger on the jack and actually wiggle it around along with the jack ganged directly below it, and the slide switches on the top don't have solid detents and tend to wiggle around a bit too.
I'm really not an elitist when it comes to brands. What works, works, and if you can get equivalent quality for a lower price, more power to you. I'm happy that there are folks that are satisfied with their Behringer products - they've been around quite a while, so one would expect they have a good percentage of satisfied customers. Unfortunately I'm not one of them, and I can clearly articulate the issues I've found with my gear - it's not because "it's Behringer", it's because two out of the three Behringer products I own have failed rather spectacularly, and the third was not built well by any reasonable metric IMO.
I will go one step further and recommend the submitter visit Musician's Friend or Sweetwater Sound and check out any of a number of MIDI control surfaces. I am happy a few people have had good luck with Behringer gear, but based on my own experience I refuse to let another piece of it in my home. I can't speak regarding their MIDI gear, but their mixing/recording gear *sucks* - they can't design proper power supplies to save their lives, and in general their gear is designed with low cost as THE primary driving factor and IMO it can sometimes be a fire hazard. It's great fun when you fire up a mixer and smoke rolls out of the power supply, and then you open it up and find that the voltage regulators they used in the supply were rated for about half the current they needed to handle. I bought a Behringer patch bay thinking, "there's no way they could screw THAT up". I was wrong. Plastic parts where metal was needed, and low quality 1/4" jacks throughout.
I'd go with a more upscale manufacturer such as Korg, Yamaha, Roland, etc., or if it has to be low-cost, M-audio is not too bad.
If spectrum is sold by market, devices wouldn't be able to roam nation wide and a wireless router that you buy in one state would be jamming cell phone signals (or worse air traffic controll) when you move to another.
No, jamming wouldn't be an issue at all. The same frequency bands would be in use for the same applications nationwide just like they are now. The only thing that would change is that licensing for a given set of cellular frequencies would be granted on a regional basis instead of nationwide. There's no reason to think that this form of licensing would all of a sudden result in the FCC granting licenses for frequencies outside the current cellular allocations. Roaming could be a bit of an issue, but nothing insurmountable by the handset manufacturers. Phones would almost certainly get more expensive (and probably larger and more power-hungry) in order to be able to handle all the possible combinations of frequencies and channel access methods under this scheme though.
The retail store division was (and continues to be) quite a substantial part of the company. My point was that just because an employee shows themselves to be up to the task of handling a large division/subsidiary of a given company, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're up to the task of running everything.
It doesn't always work like that though. Case in point - Paul Pressler understood retail very well, and did a fine job running the Disney Store retail subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. When he was given more responsibility in the form of managing the much larger Parks and Resorts subsidiary, it became quickly and painfully obvious that he didn't understand that market *at all*, and cost the company a lot of money due to his incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Does their childhood dream actually involve having someone else rip off the artist who created the thing about which they've been dreaming
George Barris has already been well paid for his original work in designing the original car for a specific purpose. Also, according to your logic, Barris should be continuing to pay Ford/Ghia licensing fees for the rights to continue making money from the Futura's design instead of "ripping off the artist" that created it. How much of the replica merchant's licensing fees should actually go to Ford/Ghia, and how much to Barris? After all, the original Futura design is clearly recognizable as the fundamental basis for the '66 Batmobile's shape, and IMO contributes more to the "Batmobile-ness" of the car than anything else.
Situational ethics, indeed.
No, actually you had it right the first time. :-) "Their" is the possessive form of "they".
The problem is based on the US legal system the way to challenge the Constitutionality of these laws is to break them, and then (after a likely horrible reaming by the justice system) appeal to the Supreme court to try to get it overturned.
.223 is a whole lot cheaper than a lawyer.
And of course, you get not a bit more justice than you can afford. I know I don't have the thousands and thousands of dollars to take a case to the Supreme Court. Eventually people will begin to notice that a box of full metal jacket
That just says that despite how unhappy the parent poster might be about the state of things, the rest of the world doesn't have enough of a problem with the way the U.S. runs the root servers to actually do anything about it.
Because it's so very democratic when the congress of one nation writes the rules affecting the whole Internet
Nothing's stopping you from rolling your own new DNS root servers....
I wait until a movie has been out for 2+ weeks, then go on an off night
I wait the two weeks for those reasons, but also because I feel better knowing the theater is getting my money instead of the studio.
It should be about what the jury believes took place, yes, but there should be a process by which a prosecutor or defendant can correct applicable misconceptions.
That would be easier to institute (in the U.S. anyway) if juries were able to ask questions of the participants during the trial, including the attorneys. It's an allowed practice in three states, but it's hardly common across the country.
They are not charged with weighing what the law says, only whether it applies and whether the defendant is guilty of it.
John Jay seemed to think differently.
You are violating the trust society put in you
No more than a cop enforcing a bad law violates the trust society places in him. Jury nullification is part of the checks and balances of our three-branch system of government. The legislature can choose not to pass a bad law, but if they do the executive can choose not to enforce it, and if all else fails the judiciary (via the jury) can choose not to convict under it.
My experience with jury duty was similar. All of the jurors were intelligent and genuinely concerned about arriving at a just verdict. It was a DUI case, and while every single one of us thought the defendant was a scumbag and was pretty sure he had in fact been driving drunk, we also unanimously agreed that the state had failed miserably to meet the burden of proof and that there was enough reasonable doubt to justify a "not guilty" verdict. It wasn't a "CSI" kind of thing either, and wasn't so much for lack of evidence as that the cops dropped the ball pretty much every step of the way and destroyed what should have been a solid case.
And to expand on that, the "government" as an entity should probably be held liable less often than the specific cogs that enabled such an injustice to take place. If you take away the expectation of certain immunity that a cop, prosecutor, or judge has for the consequences of improper actions, and take away the Nuremburg "I was just following orders" defense, they'll start to behave better.
And hey... even at best, installing noisemakers in electric cars just wastes electricity that can be better used to get a person to their destination.
Well, it depends. As long as it uses less power than what's needed to accelerate back to speed after bouncing Grandpa off the hood, it's a net gain, right?
Yeah, I missed the "member" part of your post - sorry about that.
Private corporations have financially invested people - but they are typically not referred to as shareholders.
Yes, they absolutely are. "Shareholder" or "stockholder" has a very specific legal meaning when applied to a corporation, unlike "stakeholder", "owner", or "angel investor". None of those three terms are used to refer to entities that own stock/shares in the articles of incorporation, shareholder's ledger, or other legal paperwork having to do with my corporation, or any other that I've seen.
Sole-props and partnerships don't.
How in the fuck were the Apple II or the original Mac "leaps forward" of the competition?
Apple II: For one, it came fully assembled with a keyboard, power supply, high-res color graphics, NTSC video output, and a case. Not much else in mid-1977 could make that claim.
Mac: At the time, it was the only usable GUI-based machine available at a reasonable price, and being 68000-based, it had quite a bit more CPU horsepower at its disposal than most other machines, had an 8-bit DAC as standard equipment, onboard SCSI, etc. The Lisa had been out for a short while with a similar feature set, but Apple had priced it outside the reach of most people. IBM's XT couldn't touch it performance-wise, and while IBM had introduced their AT around the same time, it was quite some time before any software could actually take advantage of the 80286 processor to do anything particularly interesting.
Not when it's overcast. :-)
I definitely agree that anecdotes aren't data, and all we're really doing here is swapping stories. I've only got three decades working in music as a side gig, but I do have two decades in software engineering and electrical design and repair. I'm glad that you've not had any problems, but I stand by my observations. My MX9000's power supply failed and required me to replace the aforementioned undersized voltage regulators (although the mixer itself appears to be built well), and my 2442 started smoking one day when I turned it on and I found a blackened power supply board in there as well, although I've not yet gotten around to fixing it. Contrast that to my Tascam M-224 that's ancient, but built like a tank and still works just fine, along with the remainder of my gear - the Behringer stuff is all that's ever given me problems. My PX2000 patch bay is junk - there are several jacks (which are largely made of plastic) where you can lightly put your finger on the jack and actually wiggle it around along with the jack ganged directly below it, and the slide switches on the top don't have solid detents and tend to wiggle around a bit too .
I'm really not an elitist when it comes to brands. What works, works, and if you can get equivalent quality for a lower price, more power to you. I'm happy that there are folks that are satisfied with their Behringer products - they've been around quite a while, so one would expect they have a good percentage of satisfied customers. Unfortunately I'm not one of them, and I can clearly articulate the issues I've found with my gear - it's not because "it's Behringer", it's because two out of the three Behringer products I own have failed rather spectacularly, and the third was not built well by any reasonable metric IMO.
I will go one step further and recommend the submitter visit Musician's Friend or Sweetwater Sound and check out any of a number of MIDI control surfaces. I am happy a few people have had good luck with Behringer gear, but based on my own experience I refuse to let another piece of it in my home. I can't speak regarding their MIDI gear, but their mixing/recording gear *sucks* - they can't design proper power supplies to save their lives, and in general their gear is designed with low cost as THE primary driving factor and IMO it can sometimes be a fire hazard. It's great fun when you fire up a mixer and smoke rolls out of the power supply, and then you open it up and find that the voltage regulators they used in the supply were rated for about half the current they needed to handle. I bought a Behringer patch bay thinking, "there's no way they could screw THAT up". I was wrong. Plastic parts where metal was needed, and low quality 1/4" jacks throughout.
I'd go with a more upscale manufacturer such as Korg, Yamaha, Roland, etc., or if it has to be low-cost, M-audio is not too bad.
Says the AC with no citations.
If spectrum is sold by market, devices wouldn't be able to roam nation wide and a wireless router that you buy in one state would be jamming cell phone signals (or worse air traffic controll) when you move to another.
No, jamming wouldn't be an issue at all. The same frequency bands would be in use for the same applications nationwide just like they are now. The only thing that would change is that licensing for a given set of cellular frequencies would be granted on a regional basis instead of nationwide. There's no reason to think that this form of licensing would all of a sudden result in the FCC granting licenses for frequencies outside the current cellular allocations. Roaming could be a bit of an issue, but nothing insurmountable by the handset manufacturers. Phones would almost certainly get more expensive (and probably larger and more power-hungry) in order to be able to handle all the possible combinations of frequencies and channel access methods under this scheme though.
If he's that fucking bored, he can re-do American Graffiti so that Toad learns to park his scooter properly.
The retail store division was (and continues to be) quite a substantial part of the company. My point was that just because an employee shows themselves to be up to the task of handling a large division/subsidiary of a given company, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're up to the task of running everything.
It doesn't always work like that though. Case in point - Paul Pressler understood retail very well, and did a fine job running the Disney Store retail subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. When he was given more responsibility in the form of managing the much larger Parks and Resorts subsidiary, it became quickly and painfully obvious that he didn't understand that market *at all*, and cost the company a lot of money due to his incompetence.
Or ignores, as the case may be.