Lawyers don't just get up in the morning of the trial and start to talk from the top of their heads. We can be sure they considered all the possible arguments, and for some reason made the decision that this was not a good line to pursue.
We'll find out in their slashdot interview after the case, I guess.
Was it really any worse than the worst case refinery accident or dam burst? You're welcome to apply these very high standards to nuclear energy, but only if you apply them uniformly to other energy sources.
In you final paragraph you seem to say you're opposed to pretty much any existing means to generate energy. Fine. But that makes your view useless for the purpose of deciding how to actually produce electricity in the real world. "None of the above" is not an option.
Anywhere on earth you are already in low level radioation. Naturally. This is the environment life has evolved in here, and it's highly unlikely that something like this would be damaging to life. Some think a little radiation is even good for life, but I don't think that's proven.
But a geostationary orbit means that it will stay over the same spot all the time. Where do these forces come from? Is it all the material in between that would naturally have faster orbits at their height?
BTW, it's probbaly better to ship up the parts of a sapce ship and assemble it there, rather than lifting the thing up there whole.
As tragedies go, some rich people getting a little less richer is hardly
much to brag about. Almost all those people are skilled professionals and will get new jobs soon, and do fine, just not with millions rolling all around them.
The repo people don't get the kick from the human misery, but from the business opportunity and chance to put some more and better food on the table. These guys make $30-60k, live in Silicon Valley, and you expect them to feel sorry for overspending tech workers?
Like the guy said, when it's real human misery, he does feel bad about it.
Basically, to own X is the same as having the right to do what you want with X, without anyone else interfering with it. You also have the right to transfer ownership to others. If someone uses X without your permission, they are stealing or trespassing on it, and you can get the legal system to help defend your property rights.
This is perfectly applicable to the electro-magnetic spectrum. And clearly, right now the FCC owns it all. That is why you have beg and protest to them to be able to continue to use your part of it.
If these frequences were your property you would not have to beg or grovel for anyone. They would be yours, as they rightfully are, to do with what you please, asking permission from no one.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the entire frequency spectrum will be given/sold to one monopolistic entity you call "corporations".
There is of course no such proposal and no such entity. If frequencies were treated as property, it would behave just like any other tradable commodity, with a huge variety of owners and usages.
The current system is a government monopoly run by the FCC, which for most purposes act as a proxy for the major media companies through the normal ways that the governenment is controlled by big money and special interest. Rest assured that they are very happy that people believe the current system is run in the interests of the people and that chaos would ensue were the government's power to be relinquished.
The arguments heard here against frequency ownership are the same as the standard ones against land ownership. "What if somebody bought all the land" etc.
Yet experience shows very clearly that private ownership of land is one of the key factors in the prosperity and freedom of nations and people. Not only is private land ownership the basis for economic well being, there is no recorded example of political freedom without it.
So you need to explain what makes radio frequencies work the opposite way. I've yet to see any such example.
One difference that would seem to make frequencies even less likely to be monopolized is that there is an infinite number (in theory, in practice at least several thousand) of frequencies in every geographical location, so you can have many different owners in one location, as opposed to land where there can only be one.
I think we can all agree that in the present system the FCC has a monopolistic control of the airwaives. And I would argue that the FCC in turn is controlled by the major media corporations through lobbying and contributions and through the usual symbiosis between the regulator and the regulated. Moving to a property based system would actually break the grip the media giants have.
I can't red the actual plan since it's slasdotted, but it sounds like part of it is to give the ownership of presently used spectrum to the current users.
If so, these frequences would be handed over to whatever organisation(s) there is for hamradio.
Having these frequences as property would ensure their continued existance much more than the present system where they can be revoked at the whim of any lobbyist greasing the right wheels at the FCC and their bosses.
OK, the basis of your argument seems to be that the facts of a case has next to no impact on the verdict in the US legal system, but that instead it's the amount of money each side can spend on lawyers that decides the outcome. I'm no small cynic my self, but I don't agree with that. Still, it's a matter of opinion.
But even if that is true, in a loser pays system you can assemble a just as powerful and expensive team as RIAA if you have a really good case on the merits, since you're not paying with your money, but with the RIAAs. I hope you think the fact of the case has some bearing when both sides pack equal lawyer power at least? An you wouldn't need to pay the retainer, since it would also come out of the RIAAs pocket.
All this under the assumption that the lawsuit being threatened has no real merit, and is only done to intimidate people who cannot afford a trial, even when they clearly have done nothing wrong. That is the problem case that at least I am talking about. If you've actually broken some law you're in much more trouble, of course.
[Thanx for the explanation of terms. My unfinished sentence were supposed to have read "I think it doesn't affect my point though"]
In the current system that's probably true. But in a different system with different incentives people would behave differently.
I think it would be good business for lawyers to accept conditions like this if they think they have an almost 100% chance to win. If there's money to be made, someone will be there making it.
The main effect though would be that these kinds of lawsuit threats would be much less common.
I'm not sure what retainer and contingency actually means. I think
Their harassment policies are geared toward stalkers. These calls don't match that profile. There aren't that many calls from a harassment standpoint, and they come from many different numbers.
I see very little about fax spam, which bothers me much more. I don't even have a fax, but previous owner of the number probably did. The fax calls come at all hours, and often wake me up at night. After a year I rigged up my modem to get some of the faxes. They all have an opt out number you can call. But that seemed to increase the calling even more.
Any ideas?
Depends on the climate zone
on
Mood Home
·
· Score: 2
For places with real snow winter, you're probably right, but bear in mind most of the world lives in warmer climates.
If winter means +10C and summer +30C, I think this would work just fine.
It's funny. Tivo is making the TV model of interupting advertising more and more irrelevant. I think the solution for TV will have to be putting ads on screen during programming, not too unlike a banner ad.
Meanwhile this guy says the exact opposite about online ads. Is it just that the grass is always greener or what?
I suppose in both cases people could work around the new ad modes using technology.
The school district already has the solution to school violence. A dress code! Check it out.
Quotes for the lazy:
Efforts are being made by MISD to ensure the highest standards of performance for all MISD stakeholders and to promote a safe and secure environment free of the perception of fear, threat, or danger.
A strong correlation exists between student appearance and the perception and/or reality of school violence.
It then goes on to list all possible fun ways to dress and look.
Dvorak's thing has long been to get attention by making outrageous statements that makes a lot of people upset. I don't think he believes the stuff himself. He can't be that stupid.
This is just one more example and people are still falling for it.
...I'd wager that most of those are government created, which was my exception.
And the oligopolies are bought by the companies from the state and the politicians, and it's all a depressing public choice nightmare, and it will all end in ttears, but I really need to go to sleep now.
Where did all the Morally Outraged Very Serious People come from?? You'd think this was a discussion about open source licencing or something!
To answer the eternal (and inherently stupid) "do we really need this" question: Yes there is a need. It's hard to find out what people think of your appearance. If you're ugly, no one will tell you. If people tell you you look good, they might be lying. Uncertainty breeds insecurity. Here you can get an objective measure. If it's high, you can stop worrying. If it's low, you can do something about it. Knowledge is good.
I submitted some pictures and learned that I got much higher ratings when I smile. May sound obvious, but good to learn anyway.
It's a rare industry that allows you to treat your customers badly and get away with it (excepting government granted monopolies of course).
But realize that in this case the customer is the Government, not you! Just like the customers for the TV networks aren't it's viewers, but it's advertisers.
I usually get annoyed when Americans see Europe as one homogenous place. It's 50 very different countries. This time it seems to be a European with the same misconception. Weird!
Anyway, the age of consent is different in every country. In Sweden it's 15.
Someone said that it differs between US states as well. Isn't there a federal limit at 18 though? Or is that only for porn?
I see all these Americans discussing this as if it were an obvious and necessary aspect of any civilized country, but perhaps the FCC has gotten some details wrong.
You should travel more! In most civilized countries, the treatment of sex and "indecency" in the media is way more relaxed, and they typically have none of the problems the americans think must ensue if these "necessary evil" regulations were not enforced with an iron fist.
Fun example: In the country where they try to hide sex from the kids as much as possible, teenage pregnancies are much higher than the rest of the rich world.
The real problem is the huge and very powerful fundamentalist christian lobby in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers don't just get up in the morning of the trial and start to talk from the top of their heads. We can be sure they considered all the possible arguments, and for some reason made the decision that this was not a good line to pursue.
We'll find out in their slashdot interview after the case, I guess.
Was it really any worse than the worst case refinery accident or dam burst? You're welcome to apply these very high standards to nuclear energy, but only if you apply them uniformly to other energy sources.
In you final paragraph you seem to say you're opposed to pretty much any existing means to generate energy. Fine. But that makes your view useless for the purpose of deciding how to actually produce electricity in the real world. "None of the above" is not an option.
Anywhere on earth you are already in low level radioation. Naturally. This is the environment life has evolved in here, and it's highly unlikely that something like this would be damaging to life. Some think a little radiation is even good for life, but I don't think that's proven.
But a geostationary orbit means that it will stay over the same spot all the time. Where do these forces come from? Is it all the material in between that would naturally have faster orbits at their height?
BTW, it's probbaly better to ship up the parts of a sapce ship and assemble it there, rather than lifting the thing up there whole.
As tragedies go, some rich people getting a little less richer is hardly
much to brag about. Almost all those people are skilled professionals and will get new jobs soon, and do fine, just not with millions rolling all around them.
The repo people don't get the kick from the human misery, but from the business opportunity and chance to put some more and better food on the table. These guys make $30-60k, live in Silicon Valley, and you expect them to feel sorry for overspending tech workers?
Like the guy said, when it's real human misery, he does feel bad about it.
It helps to define what the word "own" means.
Basically, to own X is the same as having the right to do what you want with X, without anyone else interfering with it. You also have the right to transfer ownership to others. If someone uses X without your permission, they are stealing or trespassing on it, and you can get the legal system to help defend your property rights.
This is perfectly applicable to the electro-magnetic spectrum. And clearly, right now the FCC owns it all. That is why you have beg and protest to them to be able to continue to use your part of it.
If these frequences were your property you would not have to beg or grovel for anyone. They would be yours, as they rightfully are, to do with what you please, asking permission from no one.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the entire frequency spectrum will be given/sold to one monopolistic entity you call "corporations".
There is of course no such proposal and no such entity. If frequencies were treated as property, it would behave just like any other tradable commodity, with a huge variety of owners and usages.
The current system is a government monopoly run by the FCC, which for most purposes act as a proxy for the major media companies through the normal ways that the governenment is controlled by big money and special interest. Rest assured that they are very happy that people believe the current system is run in the interests of the people and that chaos would ensue were the government's power to be relinquished.
The arguments heard here against frequency ownership are the same as the standard ones against land ownership. "What if somebody bought all the land" etc.
Yet experience shows very clearly that private ownership of land is one of the key factors in the prosperity and freedom of nations and people. Not only is private land ownership the basis for economic well being, there is no recorded example of political freedom without it.
So you need to explain what makes radio frequencies work the opposite way. I've yet to see any such example.
One difference that would seem to make frequencies even less likely to be monopolized is that there is an infinite number (in theory, in practice at least several thousand) of frequencies in every geographical location, so you can have many different owners in one location, as opposed to land where there can only be one.
I think we can all agree that in the present system the FCC has a monopolistic control of the airwaives. And I would argue that the FCC in turn is controlled by the major media corporations through lobbying and contributions and through the usual symbiosis between the regulator and the regulated. Moving to a property based system would actually break the grip the media giants have.
I can't red the actual plan since it's slasdotted, but it sounds like part of it is to give the ownership of presently used spectrum to the current users.
If so, these frequences would be handed over to whatever organisation(s) there is for hamradio.
Having these frequences as property would ensure their continued existance much more than the present system where they can be revoked at the whim of any lobbyist greasing the right wheels at the FCC and their bosses.
These politicians are fighting to destroy some core American Values.
After all, who but a clone can better illustrate that All Men Are Created Equal?
OK, the basis of your argument seems to be that the facts of a case has next to no impact on the verdict in the US legal system, but that instead it's the amount of money each side can spend on lawyers that decides the outcome. I'm no small cynic my self, but I don't agree with that. Still, it's a matter of opinion.
But even if that is true, in a loser pays system you can assemble a just as powerful and expensive team as RIAA if you have a really good case on the merits, since you're not paying with your money, but with the RIAAs. I hope you think the fact of the case has some bearing when both sides pack equal lawyer power at least? An you wouldn't need to pay the retainer, since it would also come out of the RIAAs pocket.
All this under the assumption that the lawsuit being threatened has no real merit, and is only done to intimidate people who cannot afford a trial, even when they clearly have done nothing wrong. That is the problem case that at least I am talking about. If you've actually broken some law you're in much more trouble, of course.
[Thanx for the explanation of terms. My unfinished sentence were supposed to have read "I think it doesn't affect my point though"]
In the current system that's probably true. But in a different system with different incentives people would behave differently.
I think it would be good business for lawyers to accept conditions like this if they think they have an almost 100% chance to win. If there's money to be made, someone will be there making it.
The main effect though would be that these kinds of lawsuit threats would be much less common.
I'm not sure what retainer and contingency actually means. I think
Why don't you hire an equally high powered team, and when you win, they collect their $2M from RIAA?
If it truly is a frivolous lawsuit, those lawyers will be happy to work under the condition that they only get paid if they win.
"Loser pays" is the law in many countries that, for some odd reason, does not have nearly the same volume of crazy or hostile lawsuits as the US.
The difference is that we can in fact make chess playing machines today.
But we can't make a good version of a human mind, that's true.
I tried that. Had to keep a log of all the calls.
Their harassment policies are geared toward stalkers. These calls don't match that profile. There aren't that many calls from a harassment standpoint, and they come from many different numbers.
OK, so this is a bit offtopic.
I see very little about fax spam, which bothers me much more. I don't even have a fax, but previous owner of the number probably did. The fax calls come at all hours, and often wake me up at night. After a year I rigged up my modem to get some of the faxes. They all have an opt out number you can call. But that seemed to increase the calling even more.
Any ideas?
For places with real snow winter, you're probably right, but bear in mind most of the world lives in warmer climates.
If winter means +10C and summer +30C, I think this would work just fine.
It's funny. Tivo is making the TV model of interupting advertising more and more irrelevant. I think the solution for TV will have to be putting ads on screen during programming, not too unlike a banner ad.
Meanwhile this guy says the exact opposite about online ads. Is it just that the grass is always greener or what?
I suppose in both cases people could work around the new ad modes using technology.
The school district already has the solution to school violence. A dress code! Check it out.
Quotes for the lazy:
Efforts are being made by MISD to ensure the highest standards of performance for all MISD stakeholders and to promote a safe and secure environment free of the perception of fear, threat, or danger.
A strong correlation exists between student appearance and the perception and/or reality of school violence.
It then goes on to list all possible fun ways to dress and look.
Dvorak's thing has long been to get attention by making outrageous statements that makes a lot of people upset. I don't think he believes the stuff himself. He can't be that stupid.
This is just one more example and people are still falling for it.
...I'd wager that most of those are government created, which was my exception.
And the oligopolies are bought by the companies from the state and the politicians, and it's all a depressing public choice nightmare, and it will all end in ttears, but I really need to go to sleep now.
Where did all the Morally Outraged Very Serious People come from?? You'd think this was a discussion about open source licencing or something!
To answer the eternal (and inherently stupid) "do we really need this" question: Yes there is a need. It's hard to find out what people think of your appearance. If you're ugly, no one will tell you. If people tell you you look good, they might be lying. Uncertainty breeds insecurity. Here you can get an objective measure. If it's high, you can stop worrying. If it's low, you can do something about it. Knowledge is good.
I submitted some pictures and learned that I got much higher ratings when I smile. May sound obvious, but good to learn anyway.
It's a rare industry that allows you to treat your customers badly and get away with it (excepting government granted monopolies of course).
But realize that in this case the customer is the Government, not you! Just like the customers for the TV networks aren't it's viewers, but it's advertisers.
I usually get annoyed when Americans see Europe as one homogenous place. It's 50 very different countries. This time it seems to be a European with the same misconception. Weird!
Anyway, the age of consent is different in every country. In Sweden it's 15.
Someone said that it differs between US states as well. Isn't there a federal limit at 18 though? Or is that only for porn?
I see all these Americans discussing this as if it were an obvious and necessary aspect of any civilized country, but perhaps the FCC has gotten some details wrong.
You should travel more! In most civilized countries, the treatment of sex and "indecency" in the media is way more relaxed, and they typically have none of the problems the americans think must ensue if these "necessary evil" regulations were not enforced with an iron fist.
Fun example: In the country where they try to hide sex from the kids as much as possible, teenage pregnancies are much higher than the rest of the rich world.
The real problem is the huge and very powerful fundamentalist christian lobby in the US.