I saw this too. Those meds are working quite well for him. Of course, there's also an article he wrote about how letting marriage apply to gays would destroy the meaning of marriage... so he's not totally healthy quite yet. It takes some time for those medicines to have their full effect.
Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time. But since he left office, it's clear that he's been treated by a good psychiatrist, and when he opens his mouth these days, good things tend to come out. He was on Bill Maher's show on HBO a few weeks ago and made a really good impression. Very anti-Ashcroft/Orwell. Good for him, and good for modern medicine.
this reminds me... (and i know it's offtopic).. slashdot needs a moderation for "obvious" because sometimes interesting and insightful are overstatements. This post is a prime example. Should be: (Score:5, Obvious)
it's NOT a violation of my freedom of religion. Nobody is saying you can't be muslim.
Where did i say people should be searched and then, if nothing is found, wrongly held off their flights? I never said nor implied that. If there is no reason to hold someone off a flight, then they shouldn't be held off the flight. Inspection and detention are two different things, my friend. I never said muslims should be gassed or tossed into oven, either. If the only way you can attack my argument is to invoke Godwin's Law, set up a straw man, and slither down a slippery slope, don't waste my time.
come on, I realize being tarred and feathered is extreme and can result in death, but same goes with the electric chair. I think tarring and feathering certain people most certainly has its place in the world of punitive measures, and if done publicly (as a good tarring and feathering always is) it really does make an example of the perpetrator. I am of the feeling that only tarring and feathering will truly reduce spam (if we get INTERPOL involved, that is).
Were I a Muslim, I'd be pissed off at members of my religion who make it necessary for me to be scrutinized, but I would do so, understanding that a vast, vast majority of terrorists share my religion. I'm extremely pragmatic. I'd show up at the airport early knowing that since I fit a certain profile, it may take me a few minutes longer to get through security. But I would not get pissy about it. At least not until non-muslims start crashing planes into things.
Nothing is "unfalable" but a muslim detector is simply a security professional looking out for middle-eastern men. I'd prefer political correctness not be the cause of America's demise.
I firmly do believe McV had middle-eastern assistance and motivation for the attack. But the worst thing to come of his attack in OK City was to allow people against racial profiling to say "oh but that one white guy did that one bad thing so racial profiling doesn't work!" Yes, it does work, and should be done, despite McVeigh. All muslims should be searched at airports, period. It sucks, but that's the way it is. It's not whites, latinos, or blacks who are trying to blow up and/or hijack US airplanes. it's middle easter men. And it's most certainly not the 80 year old white granny with the walker.
Well, just filter the list for the words "mohammad" and "mohammed" and "abdul" and "bin" and flag the male (sorry to sound sexist, but that's the way it goes) passengers whose names contain those "words of terror" and assign a higher risk to said passengers, and that's all that's really necessary. Anyone signing up for a "muslim meal" should also be flagged as high-risk. It's really simple, even though it seems politically incorrect at the same time. There should also be information about beard (boolean flag, yes or no) and skin melanin content (median darkness = highest risk).
The goal is to determine potential risk, not actual risk (that would be impossible, because 'risk' is about predicting future events).
they do it at their elementary schools, not on airplanes in the name of allah. Racial profiling is a form of efficiency. To be against it is to be against efficiency, which means by implication you are for inefficiency... and for what reason, because it sounds nice? Because some idiot might label efficiency the R word? When efficiency saves lives, you don't refuse it due to politically correct bullshit.
people who say this (usually about the 'indestructible' black box) and really, honestly, think they are being witty and making a valid, clever point are really fucking stupid. I hope you're not one of those people.
That's true, but most people, if you asked them a skewed question like "Do you think someone's idea should be protected by copyright forever to make sure nobody steals it?" a vast majority of people would answer yes. Keep in mind a vast majority of people are stupid, but they're the ones who dictate how things should be. It's all to save the children, of course.
the idea/expression dichotomy is dead. You can copyright 1+1=2 these days. Copyrights have become perpetual patents. Why? Because that's what most people seem to want.
Ahh, this is another argument I was making a few weeks ago when we had the article on the RIAA trying to ban p2p for kiddie porn. The RIAA makes most of its money nowadays by selling products with pictures of half-naked kids (some barely legal, some not) plastered all over them. There are younger ones than brittney, too. As far as i'm concerned, the RIAA is the biggest group of child-pron smut peddlers out there.
Good point. It's very similar to how the RIAA is secretly sharing kiddie porn on all the p2p networks so they can make a case to congress that all p2p should be shut down to save the precious children from horrible emotional abuse (ignoring the fact that the RIAA is suing 12 year old children at the same time, because one can comprehend only so much hypocrisy).
Do I really believe the RIAA is putting kiddie porn on p2p networks? Well, I've never, EVER actually come across kiddie porn on any p2p's, but then again I've never looked for it. Considering how highly illegal it is (much moreso than sharing a song... kiddie porn is right up there with crashing jetliners into buildings), I have a hard time believing anyone would be so stupid as to voluntarily share kiddie porn on a public network... unless it greatly benefitted his business model. So, I firmly believe IF there is actually kiddie porn on KaZaA, etc, that the RIAA is 100% responsible for it being there. They got the children naked, they took the pictures, they stuck them online, and they are bringing it to the government's attention. That way there is evidence to justify the Children's Peer to Peer Protection Act of 2003 (banning p2p software). Who is producing all the lobbying material (videos, booklets, etc) advocating shutting down p2p networks because of kiddie porn? The RIAA. And idiots like Orin Hatch (who, as a musician is currently getting $10+k in royalties per year, and should recuse himself from such debates due to the conflict of interest) have already taken up the RIAA's cause.
So, the bottom line is that "every time you download a song, the RIAA sexually molests a child" is not too far from the truth.
Machiavellian? Maybe so, but the fact that they're willing to sue 12 year old kids to sustain their worldwide monopoly doesn't make it much of a stretch to presume that they'd stick kiddie porn online if it meant possibly getting rid of all file sharing once and for all.
This is not a breakdown of the cost it takes to make a CD, it is where the money goes from the purchase of each CD. The price now is not the minimum price they could sell CDs at; it is the price the industry has long conspired to charge the consumer. They could charge less, still cover their costs, and make more.
They wouldn't be losing money at that price. Some people would have to make less money per CD, but sometimes less is more.
Here is an approx. current price breakup:
$ 2.00 Record-label profit + Executive salaries
$ 1.40 New artist development
$ 1.15 Distribution
$ 1.10 Manufacturing (CD + artwork + jewel case)
$.85 "Other"
$.80 Performer royalties
$.65 Songwriter royalties
$.65 Advertising and promotion
$.35 Producer
$.30 Recording costs
$.25 Music videos
$.20 Managers and lawyers
$.10 Artist pensions
That's a total cost of just under $10. If they cut those prices in half, they would sell more than double what they're currently selling right now. Probably quadruple.
Now, let's just do this:
$1.00 to the artist, including songwriter fees and pensions
$1.50 to the record label (including salaries, legal expenses, managers)
$1.00 for costs (including shipping, packaging, marketing)
$0.50 for new artist development, recording costs, music videos.
That's $4 per cd. The retail store (best buy, amazon, whatever) can charge a small surcharge over that, say 50 cents. So, $4.50 total cost (less tax) per album. With a $5 bill you could buy a CD, and since sales will skyrocket, not only will the industry not lose money, but they'll actually make more of it.
Of course, this would mean the industry saying "we fucked up."
Yeah but monkeys seem less threatening than robots (Gore). When I think of robots with power, I think of Skynet taking over the world. When I think of monkeys with power, I just don't get as threatened.
We wouldn't have had VCR's at all, and there would be no movie rental/purchase industry today. They were legally forced into allowing this industry to develop, which today they earn 60% of their revenue from. If they had had their way, the only way you could see a movie would be in the theater or on TV (and you couldn't record it as you'd have no VCR).
The music industry can follow suit. Embrace file sharing, don't try to stop casual non-commercial copying, and sell CD's for $3.99 each. They'd make a fortune.
The problem in both situations is that, when confronted with technology that seems potentially threatening, suing it until it goes away seems less risky and more economical than embracing it and trying to develop a new business model around its existence. Fortunately for both us and the MPAA, they lost. Now they make a fortune in the video industry. Unfortunately for both us and the RIAA, they have not yet lost (better lobbying) and are suing themselves into oblivion, while hurting end-consumers as well. Especially the 12 year old ones.
I may. But having a "we'll destroy america as much as we want to, and if you don't like it you can leave" attitude doesn't seem very positive to me. It kinda rings of the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have no reason to fear government cameras in your home" argument.
Hasn't anyone ever used silly putty to copy a page from a comic book? Silly putty, like p2p networks, is used to copy intellectual property of others. Thus anyone who makes silly putty is liable for vicarious infringement heh. I'm quite sure that's what the OP was talking about, because anything else doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
He did question echelon, but he didn't really make any attempt to do anything about it. And yes, ditto on supporting the drug war.
I saw this too. Those meds are working quite well for him. Of course, there's also an article he wrote about how letting marriage apply to gays would destroy the meaning of marriage... so he's not totally healthy quite yet. It takes some time for those medicines to have their full effect.
Bob Barr, when in office, was one of those insane neocons ranting about gays and hell all the time. But since he left office, it's clear that he's been treated by a good psychiatrist, and when he opens his mouth these days, good things tend to come out. He was on Bill Maher's show on HBO a few weeks ago and made a really good impression. Very anti-Ashcroft/Orwell. Good for him, and good for modern medicine.
this reminds me... (and i know it's offtopic).. slashdot needs a moderation for "obvious" because sometimes interesting and insightful are overstatements. This post is a prime example. Should be: (Score:5, Obvious)
it's NOT a violation of my freedom of religion. Nobody is saying you can't be muslim.
Where did i say people should be searched and then, if nothing is found, wrongly held off their flights? I never said nor implied that. If there is no reason to hold someone off a flight, then they shouldn't be held off the flight. Inspection and detention are two different things, my friend. I never said muslims should be gassed or tossed into oven, either. If the only way you can attack my argument is to invoke Godwin's Law, set up a straw man, and slither down a slippery slope, don't waste my time.
come on, I realize being tarred and feathered is extreme and can result in death, but same goes with the electric chair. I think tarring and feathering certain people most certainly has its place in the world of punitive measures, and if done publicly (as a good tarring and feathering always is) it really does make an example of the perpetrator. I am of the feeling that only tarring and feathering will truly reduce spam (if we get INTERPOL involved, that is).
Were I a Muslim, I'd be pissed off at members of my religion who make it necessary for me to be scrutinized, but I would do so, understanding that a vast, vast majority of terrorists share my religion. I'm extremely pragmatic. I'd show up at the airport early knowing that since I fit a certain profile, it may take me a few minutes longer to get through security. But I would not get pissy about it. At least not until non-muslims start crashing planes into things.
Nothing is "unfalable" but a muslim detector is simply a security professional looking out for middle-eastern men. I'd prefer political correctness not be the cause of America's demise.
I firmly do believe McV had middle-eastern assistance and motivation for the attack. But the worst thing to come of his attack in OK City was to allow people against racial profiling to say "oh but that one white guy did that one bad thing so racial profiling doesn't work!" Yes, it does work, and should be done, despite McVeigh. All muslims should be searched at airports, period. It sucks, but that's the way it is. It's not whites, latinos, or blacks who are trying to blow up and/or hijack US airplanes. it's middle easter men. And it's most certainly not the 80 year old white granny with the walker.
Well, just filter the list for the words "mohammad" and "mohammed" and "abdul" and "bin" and flag the male (sorry to sound sexist, but that's the way it goes) passengers whose names contain those "words of terror" and assign a higher risk to said passengers, and that's all that's really necessary. Anyone signing up for a "muslim meal" should also be flagged as high-risk. It's really simple, even though it seems politically incorrect at the same time. There should also be information about beard (boolean flag, yes or no) and skin melanin content (median darkness = highest risk).
The goal is to determine potential risk, not actual risk (that would be impossible, because 'risk' is about predicting future events).
they do it at their elementary schools, not on airplanes in the name of allah. Racial profiling is a form of efficiency. To be against it is to be against efficiency, which means by implication you are for inefficiency... and for what reason, because it sounds nice? Because some idiot might label efficiency the R word? When efficiency saves lives, you don't refuse it due to politically correct bullshit.
people who say this (usually about the 'indestructible' black box) and really, honestly, think they are being witty and making a valid, clever point are really fucking stupid. I hope you're not one of those people.
That's true, but most people, if you asked them a skewed question like "Do you think someone's idea should be protected by copyright forever to make sure nobody steals it?" a vast majority of people would answer yes. Keep in mind a vast majority of people are stupid, but they're the ones who dictate how things should be. It's all to save the children, of course.
the idea/expression dichotomy is dead. You can copyright 1+1=2 these days. Copyrights have become perpetual patents. Why? Because that's what most people seem to want.
http://www.pressepapiers.net/archives/2003/08/21/p rivate_copying.html... discusses the legal flaws in the article.
Prepare to have floating, 3D advertisements everywhere you fucking look.
Ahh, this is another argument I was making a few weeks ago when we had the article on the RIAA trying to ban p2p for kiddie porn. The RIAA makes most of its money nowadays by selling products with pictures of half-naked kids (some barely legal, some not) plastered all over them. There are younger ones than brittney, too. As far as i'm concerned, the RIAA is the biggest group of child-pron smut peddlers out there.
Good point. It's very similar to how the RIAA is secretly sharing kiddie porn on all the p2p networks so they can make a case to congress that all p2p should be shut down to save the precious children from horrible emotional abuse (ignoring the fact that the RIAA is suing 12 year old children at the same time, because one can comprehend only so much hypocrisy).
Do I really believe the RIAA is putting kiddie porn on p2p networks? Well, I've never, EVER actually come across kiddie porn on any p2p's, but then again I've never looked for it. Considering how highly illegal it is (much moreso than sharing a song... kiddie porn is right up there with crashing jetliners into buildings), I have a hard time believing anyone would be so stupid as to voluntarily share kiddie porn on a public network... unless it greatly benefitted his business model. So, I firmly believe IF there is actually kiddie porn on KaZaA, etc, that the RIAA is 100% responsible for it being there. They got the children naked, they took the pictures, they stuck them online, and they are bringing it to the government's attention. That way there is evidence to justify the Children's Peer to Peer Protection Act of 2003 (banning p2p software). Who is producing all the lobbying material (videos, booklets, etc) advocating shutting down p2p networks because of kiddie porn? The RIAA. And idiots like Orin Hatch (who, as a musician is currently getting $10+k in royalties per year, and should recuse himself from such debates due to the conflict of interest) have already taken up the RIAA's cause.
So, the bottom line is that "every time you download a song, the RIAA sexually molests a child" is not too far from the truth.
Machiavellian? Maybe so, but the fact that they're willing to sue 12 year old kids to sustain their worldwide monopoly doesn't make it much of a stretch to presume that they'd stick kiddie porn online if it meant possibly getting rid of all file sharing once and for all.
This is not a breakdown of the cost it takes to make a CD, it is where the money goes from the purchase of each CD. The price now is not the minimum price they could sell CDs at; it is the price the industry has long conspired to charge the consumer. They could charge less, still cover their costs, and make more.
They wouldn't be losing money at that price. Some people would have to make less money per CD, but sometimes less is more.
.85 "Other" .80 Performer royalties .65 Songwriter royalties .65 Advertising and promotion .35 Producer .30 Recording costs .25 Music videos .20 Managers and lawyers .10 Artist pensions
Here is an approx. current price breakup:
$ 2.00 Record-label profit + Executive salaries
$ 1.40 New artist development
$ 1.15 Distribution
$ 1.10 Manufacturing (CD + artwork + jewel case)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
That's a total cost of just under $10. If they cut those prices in half, they would sell more than double what they're currently selling right now. Probably quadruple.
Now, let's just do this:
$1.00 to the artist, including songwriter fees and pensions
$1.50 to the record label (including salaries, legal expenses, managers)
$1.00 for costs (including shipping, packaging, marketing)
$0.50 for new artist development, recording costs, music videos.
That's $4 per cd. The retail store (best buy, amazon, whatever) can charge a small surcharge over that, say 50 cents. So, $4.50 total cost (less tax) per album. With a $5 bill you could buy a CD, and since sales will skyrocket, not only will the industry not lose money, but they'll actually make more of it.
Of course, this would mean the industry saying "we fucked up."
Yeah but monkeys seem less threatening than robots (Gore). When I think of robots with power, I think of Skynet taking over the world. When I think of monkeys with power, I just don't get as threatened.
We wouldn't have had VCR's at all, and there would be no movie rental/purchase industry today. They were legally forced into allowing this industry to develop, which today they earn 60% of their revenue from. If they had had their way, the only way you could see a movie would be in the theater or on TV (and you couldn't record it as you'd have no VCR).
The music industry can follow suit. Embrace file sharing, don't try to stop casual non-commercial copying, and sell CD's for $3.99 each. They'd make a fortune.
The problem in both situations is that, when confronted with technology that seems potentially threatening, suing it until it goes away seems less risky and more economical than embracing it and trying to develop a new business model around its existence. Fortunately for both us and the MPAA, they lost. Now they make a fortune in the video industry. Unfortunately for both us and the RIAA, they have not yet lost (better lobbying) and are suing themselves into oblivion, while hurting end-consumers as well. Especially the 12 year old ones.
I may. But having a "we'll destroy america as much as we want to, and if you don't like it you can leave" attitude doesn't seem very positive to me. It kinda rings of the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have no reason to fear government cameras in your home" argument.
I hated, and still do hate, algore. Bush seemed so innocent and harmless. Mea culpa.
Hasn't anyone ever used silly putty to copy a page from a comic book? Silly putty, like p2p networks, is used to copy intellectual property of others. Thus anyone who makes silly putty is liable for vicarious infringement heh. I'm quite sure that's what the OP was talking about, because anything else doesn't make sense.
trademark covers brand names, not copyright.