How a 5-day waiting period or ban on *assault rifles* can be construed as "OMG NAZI DEMS WANNA TAKE MY GUNZ!!1!", I'm not quite sure.
Because "assault weapon" (not "assault rifle", which the 1994 ban did not cover) is basically an arbitrarily made-up term for "scary black gun". Such weapons are no more deadly than an average 30.06 hunting rifle. The attributes that turn a semi-automatic rifle into an "assault weapon" have nothing to do with how dangerous the gun is, and mostly have to do with making it more comfortable to shoot. It also has little to do with improving crime statistics - I can just as easily punch a hole in a cop with body armor with the Weatherby Vanguard I bought at Wal-Mart as I can with a Rock River AR-15 that costs three times as much, and I can do it from three times the distance. But, because the AR is Parkerized, has a pistol grip and flash hider and *looks* like a military gun, it's somehow much more dangerous. The law was basically a poor attempt to desensitize the populace to the idea of more stringent gun control, and thankfully it failed.
If you'd lived in New Orleans during Katrina, you wouldn't be able to make the statement about a Democrat not trying to take your guns away.
It's not always the case that Republicans are pro-gun. Bush himself had said he'd sign the follow-on legislation to the 1994 assault weapons ban if it reached his desk.
Well, believe it or not, that was the best strategy for survival for the majority of airplane hijackings.
Well, it was *believed* to be the best strategy based on not much more than guesswork, and certainly not on any real historical data. Most people would rather live on their knees than die on their feet, I guess.
Terrorists/extremists of any ilk are so convinced of their moral "superiority" that they feel compelled to rearrange the world to suit them and their beliefs
Puts a whole different spin on invading and occupying a country that poses no articulable strategic or tactical threat on the basis of "spreading democracy"...
Even absent the 1st-10th amendments, the people *still* would have the rights enumerated therein. The Constitution spells out the rights the people grant to the government, not the other way around.
Given the way management works, I'd imagine the builders tried to do exactly that, only to be told by their superiors to continue working until it was finished, regardless of the outcome. If it fell, the workers would be blamed for their substandard work. If not, it would serve as a testament to management's foresight and proof of their competence to any who might have criticized their decision. In no case would the project's management ever be held to any kind of responsibility for anything bad that might happen.
It's the way it's always worked, and the way it always will work.
Not nearly so despicable as a government that ignores the rule of law for those who curry its favor and provides no legal means for those wronged to secure justice. We'll see what happens with MediaDefender, but I severely doubt anyone will be held to any meaningful degree of responsibility over this.
Ok, then how do MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. get away with the "any recording, rebroadcast, written or other accounts of this game..."?
They don't. That's why a FTC complaint was filed against those organizations and a few others last year for overstating their rights and misleading consumers regarding their own.
As far as the Flatiron Building goes, I guess they're not familiar with 17 USC 120(a):
"Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
It's not really dangerous, but 200 degree brass kinda sucks just the same if the ejector kicks it straight out instead of out and up and it hits you in the arm. My favorite is when the guy at the station to my left ejects a case and it gets stuck in between the arm of my glasses and my face - it takes at least a couple of seconds to safely put your own gun down and get the brass off your face, which is usually long enough to leave a nice mark and leave you swearing for a little while.
The article is never very specific regarding Nicks exact role at the store
I'm not sure it's really relevant. One doesn't have to be an auto mechanic to suggest to the boss that it's not a good idea to leave the company van idling in a closed garage.
Which Sabbath? The original Jewish one that runs from Friday night to Saturday night as per the appropriate Commandment, or the Catholic one established in 364 AD that says, "oh, never mind that Saturday thing - we'll do it on Sunday to get more widespread acceptance of the faith!"?
People gotta know, or else you just KNOW there'll be all kinds of paperwork issues and arguments when people get bumped off on the wrong day.
That's one approach, and it's how songwriters used to work almost exclusively. I'm not suggesting that's the best approach, or that musicians/actors/etc. can't make a lot of money from their work, but the current copyright situation is just totally out of hand. There's no cosmic morality that says someone should make millions of dollars for the rest of their life just because they wrote a little jingle that a lot of people like.
The vast majority of professional musicians are paid a fixed hourly rate, and have to start looking for work again when a particular job is finished.
This.
Whenever I did a pit orchestra or other contract gig, I negotiated a fee per-performance (not hourly, but it's basically the same thing) and I knew up front how many performances would be involved, and there were stipulations in the contract regarding the possibility of extra performances and that I was providing a service that I could subcontract out if needed. Contracts where a *specific* performer was required would obviously be better paid due to the restrictiveness of the contract, and the basic "supply and demand" aspect another poster alluded to somewhere along the line.
"Why should an artist not be entitled reap the benefits of the album they recorded?" One could ask the same of any other industry - why doesn't a newspaper reporter or magazine editor get a cut of every copy sold? It's because the recording and film industries (and to some extent, publishing) have developed a ridiculous entitlement mentality that most other industries are grown-up enough to avoid. I really don't have a problem with a limited term of copyright, but what we have now is just totally out of hand. The idea of copyright was to encourage future creativity, not be another form of welfare, and certainly not an endorsement of the ridiculous idea that just because someone thought of something that idea somehow *belongs* to them.
I'm not arguing the economics of supply and demand - what you've said is true and pretty much goes without saying, but I'm asking what moral justification the government has regarding a grant of what is fast becoming effectively infinite copyright. Congress is preventing any works *at all* from entering the public domain by continually extending the copyright term, which flies in the face of the stated purpose of copyright as per the U.S. Constitution.
This is really good stuff. You're a programmer, so you don't have a problem with your employer selling licenses to your work (and presumably paying your salary). But other people's work.. that should be freely distributed.
That's not what I said and you know it. Besides, my work is largely in embedded-type systems, so there's not any "license selling" going on. Can you or can you not defend your stance without resorting to putting words in other peoples' mouths and oblique ad-homs?
Well done, you just found a way to wipe out the music, movie, book, play, software and games industries.
And all done so you can feel better about downloading torrented movies to save a few bucks...
Actually, I do buy the stuff I watch/listen to/etc. I also have worked off and on for the past 25 years as a part-time musician in a number of pit orchestras, bands, and other venues, and also have written incidental music for some of those same venues, so kindly don't talk to me about how bad musicians have it. The difference is that in addition to being able to create music, I also have skills that are considered valuable in the real world.
I noticed that you didn't address what makes musicians different from programmers re: the entitlement mentality of being paid for their work until after they die.
I have no embarassment whatsoever in telling musicians and moviemarkers that they've cultivated a disgusting and immoral entitlement mentality in expecting to get paid for the rest of their lives for each work they produce.
I'm a software developer. I write thousands of lines of code every year. I've probably written well in excess of a million lines of code since I started doing this. And you know what? I was paid for writing each one of those, with no expectation of continuing profits until I die. I can point to lots and lots of places where the people that employed me made quite a bit of money from my code. I really don't have a problem with that, even though I'd say that the majority of programmers, tech writers, and other creative folks who produced copyrighted work for hire provide a lot more benefit to society that the majority of musicians and filmmakers. Why should some high-school dropout with no useful skills other than wailing (off-pitch, no less) into a microphone expect to be any different? Similarly, why should any corporation expect that?
Not to mention the government contracting world can be a rather small and close-knit group, where everyone knows everyone and doing something to screw an employer will instantly become common knowledge that guarantees you'll never work in that industry again.
It's a hell of a lot more reliable than USB as well, particularly over any distance, and you almost always get a mechanically-solid connection instead of something flimsy that will work its way loose at the most inopportune time. I generally go out of my way to avoid using USB in an industrial application, much preferring RS-232/485 or Ethernet where possible.
Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie
I'd argue that Maul was all the villain we needed throughout all three movies. Obviously Sidious needed to have some kind of subtle presence in the first and second films, but I felt that the Dooku character was pretty much pointless and Christopher Lee was wasted on him. I think it would have made for an awesome scene if Palpatine openly betrayed Maul by offering Anakin the Sith apprenticeship by killing Maul once he'd learned of Palpatine's true identity.
Slashdot Mirror
How a 5-day waiting period or ban on *assault rifles* can be construed as "OMG NAZI DEMS WANNA TAKE MY GUNZ!!1!", I'm not quite sure.
Because "assault weapon" (not "assault rifle", which the 1994 ban did not cover) is basically an arbitrarily made-up term for "scary black gun". Such weapons are no more deadly than an average 30.06 hunting rifle. The attributes that turn a semi-automatic rifle into an "assault weapon" have nothing to do with how dangerous the gun is, and mostly have to do with making it more comfortable to shoot. It also has little to do with improving crime statistics - I can just as easily punch a hole in a cop with body armor with the Weatherby Vanguard I bought at Wal-Mart as I can with a Rock River AR-15 that costs three times as much, and I can do it from three times the distance. But, because the AR is Parkerized, has a pistol grip and flash hider and *looks* like a military gun, it's somehow much more dangerous. The law was basically a poor attempt to desensitize the populace to the idea of more stringent gun control, and thankfully it failed.
If you'd lived in New Orleans during Katrina, you wouldn't be able to make the statement about a Democrat not trying to take your guns away.
It's not always the case that Republicans are pro-gun. Bush himself had said he'd sign the follow-on legislation to the 1994 assault weapons ban if it reached his desk.
Well, believe it or not, that was the best strategy for survival for the majority of airplane hijackings.
Well, it was *believed* to be the best strategy based on not much more than guesswork, and certainly not on any real historical data. Most people would rather live on their knees than die on their feet, I guess.
Terrorists/extremists of any ilk are so convinced of their moral "superiority" that they feel compelled to rearrange the world to suit them and their beliefs
Puts a whole different spin on invading and occupying a country that poses no articulable strategic or tactical threat on the basis of "spreading democracy"...
Even absent the 1st-10th amendments, the people *still* would have the rights enumerated therein. The Constitution spells out the rights the people grant to the government, not the other way around.
Well, that's how the Federation does it anyway.
Given the way management works, I'd imagine the builders tried to do exactly that, only to be told by their superiors to continue working until it was finished, regardless of the outcome. If it fell, the workers would be blamed for their substandard work. If not, it would serve as a testament to management's foresight and proof of their competence to any who might have criticized their decision. In no case would the project's management ever be held to any kind of responsibility for anything bad that might happen.
It's the way it's always worked, and the way it always will work.
Generally speaking, it is a despicable practice.
Not nearly so despicable as a government that ignores the rule of law for those who curry its favor and provides no legal means for those wronged to secure justice. We'll see what happens with MediaDefender, but I severely doubt anyone will be held to any meaningful degree of responsibility over this.
Ok, then how do MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. get away with the "any recording, rebroadcast, written or other accounts of this game..."?
They don't. That's why a FTC complaint was filed against those organizations and a few others last year for overstating their rights and misleading consumers regarding their own.
As far as the Flatiron Building goes, I guess they're not familiar with 17 USC 120(a):
"Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
It's not really dangerous, but 200 degree brass kinda sucks just the same if the ejector kicks it straight out instead of out and up and it hits you in the arm. My favorite is when the guy at the station to my left ejects a case and it gets stuck in between the arm of my glasses and my face - it takes at least a couple of seconds to safely put your own gun down and get the brass off your face, which is usually long enough to leave a nice mark and leave you swearing for a little while.
That's fricking awesome that you distribute in Vorbis AND provide LilyPond files.
The article is never very specific regarding Nicks exact role at the store
I'm not sure it's really relevant. One doesn't have to be an auto mechanic to suggest to the boss that it's not a good idea to leave the company van idling in a closed garage.
Which Sabbath? The original Jewish one that runs from Friday night to Saturday night as per the appropriate Commandment, or the Catholic one established in 364 AD that says, "oh, never mind that Saturday thing - we'll do it on Sunday to get more widespread acceptance of the faith!"?
People gotta know, or else you just KNOW there'll be all kinds of paperwork issues and arguments when people get bumped off on the wrong day.
That's one approach, and it's how songwriters used to work almost exclusively. I'm not suggesting that's the best approach, or that musicians/actors/etc. can't make a lot of money from their work, but the current copyright situation is just totally out of hand. There's no cosmic morality that says someone should make millions of dollars for the rest of their life just because they wrote a little jingle that a lot of people like.
The vast majority of professional musicians are paid a fixed hourly rate, and have to start looking for work again when a particular job is finished.
This.
Whenever I did a pit orchestra or other contract gig, I negotiated a fee per-performance (not hourly, but it's basically the same thing) and I knew up front how many performances would be involved, and there were stipulations in the contract regarding the possibility of extra performances and that I was providing a service that I could subcontract out if needed. Contracts where a *specific* performer was required would obviously be better paid due to the restrictiveness of the contract, and the basic "supply and demand" aspect another poster alluded to somewhere along the line.
"Why should an artist not be entitled reap the benefits of the album they recorded?" One could ask the same of any other industry - why doesn't a newspaper reporter or magazine editor get a cut of every copy sold? It's because the recording and film industries (and to some extent, publishing) have developed a ridiculous entitlement mentality that most other industries are grown-up enough to avoid. I really don't have a problem with a limited term of copyright, but what we have now is just totally out of hand. The idea of copyright was to encourage future creativity, not be another form of welfare, and certainly not an endorsement of the ridiculous idea that just because someone thought of something that idea somehow *belongs* to them.
I'm not arguing the economics of supply and demand - what you've said is true and pretty much goes without saying, but I'm asking what moral justification the government has regarding a grant of what is fast becoming effectively infinite copyright. Congress is preventing any works *at all* from entering the public domain by continually extending the copyright term, which flies in the face of the stated purpose of copyright as per the U.S. Constitution.
This is really good stuff. You're a programmer, so you don't have a problem with your employer selling licenses to your work (and presumably paying your salary). But other people's work.. that should be freely distributed.
That's not what I said and you know it. Besides, my work is largely in embedded-type systems, so there's not any "license selling" going on. Can you or can you not defend your stance without resorting to putting words in other peoples' mouths and oblique ad-homs?
Well done, you just found a way to wipe out the music, movie, book, play, software and games industries. And all done so you can feel better about downloading torrented movies to save a few bucks...
Actually, I do buy the stuff I watch/listen to/etc. I also have worked off and on for the past 25 years as a part-time musician in a number of pit orchestras, bands, and other venues, and also have written incidental music for some of those same venues, so kindly don't talk to me about how bad musicians have it. The difference is that in addition to being able to create music, I also have skills that are considered valuable in the real world.
I noticed that you didn't address what makes musicians different from programmers re: the entitlement mentality of being paid for their work until after they die.
I have no embarassment whatsoever in telling musicians and moviemarkers that they've cultivated a disgusting and immoral entitlement mentality in expecting to get paid for the rest of their lives for each work they produce.
I'm a software developer. I write thousands of lines of code every year. I've probably written well in excess of a million lines of code since I started doing this. And you know what? I was paid for writing each one of those, with no expectation of continuing profits until I die. I can point to lots and lots of places where the people that employed me made quite a bit of money from my code. I really don't have a problem with that, even though I'd say that the majority of programmers, tech writers, and other creative folks who produced copyrighted work for hire provide a lot more benefit to society that the majority of musicians and filmmakers. Why should some high-school dropout with no useful skills other than wailing (off-pitch, no less) into a microphone expect to be any different? Similarly, why should any corporation expect that?
Not to mention the government contracting world can be a rather small and close-knit group, where everyone knows everyone and doing something to screw an employer will instantly become common knowledge that guarantees you'll never work in that industry again.
It's a hell of a lot more reliable than USB as well, particularly over any distance, and you almost always get a mechanically-solid connection instead of something flimsy that will work its way loose at the most inopportune time. I generally go out of my way to avoid using USB in an industrial application, much preferring RS-232/485 or Ethernet where possible.
I'm a regular patron of "All Things Scottish" myself.
You mean you didn't totally and unconditionally buy the midichlorians?!?!
Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie
I'd argue that Maul was all the villain we needed throughout all three movies. Obviously Sidious needed to have some kind of subtle presence in the first and second films, but I felt that the Dooku character was pretty much pointless and Christopher Lee was wasted on him. I think it would have made for an awesome scene if Palpatine openly betrayed Maul by offering Anakin the Sith apprenticeship by killing Maul once he'd learned of Palpatine's true identity.
And there's Leia in a bikini.