"I prefer the more intelligent response: lacking evidence one way or the other, suspend judgement."
But we have evidence: we know there's nothing in the laws of physics that would stop us taking over the entire galaxy in a relatively short period of time relative to the life of the galaxy, and we can see that within that time we'd easily be able to begin huge engineering projects that would be obvious to anyone in the galaxy... finding evidence of advanced intelligent life in the galaxy should be about as hard as finding evidence of technological life in Manhattan or San Francisco. Instead, what we see out there is a wilderness: which is fairly strong evidence that there's no-one else out there.
"It would be extreme foolishness to claim there is no other intelligent life in the universe."
Why? Someone has to be first, and they can easily colonise their galaxy within a million years... so given that intelligent life is rare enough not to be obvious, it's unlikely that there'd be a second.
And given that well within that million years we'd be able to carry out engineering projects that would be visible right across the galaxy, we can be pretty sure there's no-one else here.
Universe-wide, maybe there is someone else out there. But unless something very strange is going on, or they're a bunch of treehugging hippies who chose not to leave their home planet, there's no other intelligent life in this galaxy.
"The big studios are better insulated. It's the independents that are most at risk."
Sorry, but that's garbage. Most independent film-makers can only dream of their movies being shown on so many screens that people would be taping them with camcorders and putting them up on P2P sites. The only thing at risk is the profits of big movie companies... or, rather, the bloated salaries of movie stars and directors.
I went to a talk by one independent film-maker who's been working for decades and he was strongly opposed to this kind of MPAA nonsense (and, for that matter, hated the MPAA in general for making it so hard for independents to compete against the latest crappy $200 million blockbuster).
"I've never in my life known some one to see a pirate copy of a film and run out and buy a store copy."
Then I can only presume that all your friends are cheapskates or crooks. I know of many situations where people have downloaded copies of movies and then bought the DVD as soon as it was available.
For example, just look at the number of Star Wars fans who've got pirate copies of the original movies they've downloaded because George Lucas _refuses_ to sell them a legitimate copy. Do you really beleive that none of those people are going to be queueing up to buy the DVD box set the instant it's actually available for purchase?
"If that was true China would be a massive customer."
It's hard to buy DVDs at $20 a pop when you earn $0.50 an hour.
"Oops, did I bring my camcorder and tripod into the theater by mistake? Hehe, sorry officer.."
I often carry my camcorder around with me. Are you saying that I should be banned from paying good money to go to see a movie while I'm carrying it?
I have little problem with people being prosecuted for taping movies from the cinema screen, if they're planning to use it for anything other than their own personal viewing... but given that almost no-one does that and that it's illegal anyway, why is it worth passing yet another law? I have a big problem with being threatened with prosecution for merely having a camcorder in a cinema, if that's really the case here.
"Come Armageddon, you will all fold like the paper tigers you are and come home cryin to mommy."
There won't be any Armageddon unless Bush and his moronic supporters manage to create it. That's the scariest thing about the War on Arabs, it seems like a very blatant attempt to Immanentize the Eschaton.
Why should I? I have no quarrel with Arabs in the Middle East: they don't interfere with my life on a daily basis, unlike the US government with its fascist policies.
"because you know, islam will eventually kill YOU"
I have several Muslim friends, and you know what? Not once has any one of them tried to kill me... unlike trigger-happy Americans.
"its the best line ive ever seen drawn in the sand. its even better than the USA vs. the USSR."
Line up folks for the great new sensation: 'Cold War II: US vs Arabs with AKs, RPGs and box-cutters'!
Yawn. It's just another tired remake, a lame excuse to funnel trillions of dollars from hard-working taxpayers to the military-industrial-media complex. Screw that.
"most of the world does not approve of what the US is doing in the war against terror."
Actually I suspect that much of the world does approve of the actual war against terror, but Bush gave up on that long ago. It's the war against Arabs that's pissing us off.
"Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special. Simply existing is not enough. A person can't accomplish a damn thing on their own.
Through unity, there is strength. From strength, comes power. With enough power, anything is possible."
It's so rare to see people openly avowing fascist ideals these days.
"Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus)"
Bush is an idiot, but your very first sentence demonstrates that you have no clue either. The budget was never "balanced" while Clinton was in office: every single year that national debt was at least hundred billion dollars higher at the end of the year than the start. As with pretty much everything else Clinton did, he "balanaced the budget" not by actually, really, spending no more than he took in, but by redefining what "balanced" meant.
"But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state."
ROTFLMAO. You don't correct nearly a decade of economic mismanagement by Clinton in a year or two. Bush's policies have been insane, but the recession was an inevitable result of Clinton's perpetual low-interest-rate policies and the dot bomb speculative bubble they created.
"Government spending in terms of % of GDP is the figure that really gives an idea of spending that was relative to WW2."
Only if you believe that GDP tells you anything meaningful about the real economy: sending in the B2s to bomb New York would cause a huge boost to GDP with all the money spent on bombs, healthcare for bombing victims, and rebuilding the city afterwards, but it would hardly be a sensible economic policy.
"However, investment usually implies a return, and most train companies lose money"
Exactly: most countries screw the taxpayer, who probably just wants better roads to drive their car on, in order to keep the train unions in a job and subsidise rich businessmen taking long-distance train rides. I presume Japan is the same, since the Shinkansen trips I made over there a few years ago cost no more than trips of a similar distance on the clunkers British Rail were running at the time.
"Ironic that the rail revolution made the US what it is today, and it has to be the major economy that has turned its back on rail the most."
Hardly: it should be no surprise that the nation that's quickest to abandon uneconomic technology is the most successful. If only Britain had the same attitude, rather than some Luddite desire to keep trains running no matter how bad and inefficient they may be.
[quote]I just wish the US would invest in more passenger trains.[/quote]
There's a reason why Amtrak is (or was) the only profitable railway network in the world: it runs very few passenger trains. Railways don't like passengers because they're a pain in the ass, expect to get places in a hurry and complain if they're late. Freight is the only thing that makes economic sense on railways, with the exception of a few commuter services in and out of big cities with traffic congestion problems.
[quote]imagine how much fuel/electricity we could save if we could all easily commute by train[/quote]
Imagine how much fuel/electricity is wasted running almost empty trains the rest of the day. If saving fuel and electricity is what you're after, you'd do far better to promote telecommuting than 19th century transport technology.
"In Europe you cannot be strapped to a gurney and executed by the state for any crime."
Why do you think that hard-working taxpayers should have their money stolen to keep that serial rapist and murderer in jail for the fourteen years until the Norwegian legal system apparently sets them free to rape and murder again?
"As for the specific case of double jeopardy, you are taking one tiny aspect of differences in the legal system"
It is _not_ a tiny aspect, it is one of the most crucial and fundamental differences between civilised "innocent until proven guilty" states and barbaric "guilty until proven innocent" states. Yes, America has seen abuses of power in the past, and yes, the lawyers have screwed up the legal system in many ways, but you still know that if you get acquitted you're acquitted, case over, never to be called back again.
As for letting serial killers out of jail after fourteen years, I guess you're lucky that Norway doesn't have many serial killers. That's an insane policy that utterly degrades the value of the life of a murder victim.
"There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice."
There are very good reasons: for example, historically juries in civilised nations have routinely refused to convict people for breaking unpopular laws, effectively providing direct democracy in the jury box. Since the prosecutor can't get a retrial, that person is now free.
This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
"In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!""
Indeed they could. Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials... particularly if that "guilty" person was breaking some bogus law that 90% of the population oppose.
See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent" nations. As bad as some abuses have been in Britain and America, we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people: there are good reasons for that, and our long-standing fear of giving people uncontrolled power is the largest one.
So? If their case wasn't good enough the first time around, why should they get a second chance?
As for the "no jury", I find that even more appalling than the idea of allowing retrials: it's no wonder that countries with such corrupt legal systems suffered such governmental abuse in the last century. Jury trials are the other vital pillar of legal freedom in Anglo nations: if the jury don't like a law, they acquit, and there is nothing the prosecutor can do about it.
A second trial for someone who's been acquitted is _already_ abuse. No free country would allow such a thing, nor consider that the people who make up their government should for one moment be considered trustworthy to have that power: any power given to them will be abused sooner or later, as it is here.
Again, that's the difference between Anglo nations and European nations: we'll take the chance of someone being acquitted improperly before we'll trust the government not to abuse their powers, Europeans trust their governments not to abuse their powers more than someone being acquitted improperly. Oddly enough, the worst government abuses by far in the developed world have happened in... mainland European countries where they trust the governments not to abuse their powers.
"Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal?"
Because there have been numerous cases in history of people being harassed by governments until they went bankrupt or were finally found guilty on a bogus charge. If the government doesn't have the evidence to convict, then it shouldn't be bringing a case... and if that evidence doesn't convict the jury, then they have no grounds for trying a second time.
That you can even consider this a good thing for one second is a clear example of why Europe and the Anglo nations (all of which, I believe, ban such retrials) will never get along. We've never trusted our governments, and for good reason.
An organisation as important as the MPAA can do anything. After all, the entire global economy would just collapse if people could pirate bad movies, therefore it's vital that every nation should surrender to the might of the MPAA.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll find that in free countries a defendant can appeal a conviction, but a prosecutor can't appeal an acuittal, precisely in order to prevent government abuse by perpetual retrials.
Personally I thought 'Two Towers' was a better movie than the first one, and the only reason I'm not going to see the final movie at the cinema straight away is because, as with the other two, I'd rather get a DVD and watch the proper version rather than a slashed-up cut for Joe Sixpack... I'll do the cinema thing when one of the London cinemas puts on a marathon showing of the extended versions of all three movies back-to-back.
If I remember correctly my DVD box says that they cut out 43 minutes for the cinema realease of 'Two Towers': it's hard to see what they could have left of the plot with that much removed.
Slashdot Mirror
"I prefer the more intelligent response: lacking evidence one way or the other, suspend judgement."
But we have evidence: we know there's nothing in the laws of physics that would stop us taking over the entire galaxy in a relatively short period of time relative to the life of the galaxy, and we can see that within that time we'd easily be able to begin huge engineering projects that would be obvious to anyone in the galaxy... finding evidence of advanced intelligent life in the galaxy should be about as hard as finding evidence of technological life in Manhattan or San Francisco. Instead, what we see out there is a wilderness: which is fairly strong evidence that there's no-one else out there.
"It would be extreme foolishness to claim there is no other intelligent life in the universe."
Why? Someone has to be first, and they can easily colonise their galaxy within a million years... so given that intelligent life is rare enough not to be obvious, it's unlikely that there'd be a second.
And given that well within that million years we'd be able to carry out engineering projects that would be visible right across the galaxy, we can be pretty sure there's no-one else here.
Universe-wide, maybe there is someone else out there. But unless something very strange is going on, or they're a bunch of treehugging hippies who chose not to leave their home planet, there's no other intelligent life in this galaxy.
"The big studios are better insulated. It's the independents that are most at risk."
Sorry, but that's garbage. Most independent film-makers can only dream of their movies being shown on so many screens that people would be taping them with camcorders and putting them up on P2P sites. The only thing at risk is the profits of big movie companies... or, rather, the bloated salaries of movie stars and directors.
I went to a talk by one independent film-maker who's been working for decades and he was strongly opposed to this kind of MPAA nonsense (and, for that matter, hated the MPAA in general for making it so hard for independents to compete against the latest crappy $200 million blockbuster).
"I've never in my life known some one to see a pirate copy of a film and run out and buy a store copy."
Then I can only presume that all your friends are cheapskates or crooks. I know of many situations where people have downloaded copies of movies and then bought the DVD as soon as it was available.
For example, just look at the number of Star Wars fans who've got pirate copies of the original movies they've downloaded because George Lucas _refuses_ to sell them a legitimate copy. Do you really beleive that none of those people are going to be queueing up to buy the DVD box set the instant it's actually available for purchase?
"If that was true China would be a massive customer."
It's hard to buy DVDs at $20 a pop when you earn $0.50 an hour.
"Oops, did I bring my camcorder and tripod into the theater by mistake? Hehe, sorry officer.."
I often carry my camcorder around with me. Are you saying that I should be banned from paying good money to go to see a movie while I'm carrying it?
I have little problem with people being prosecuted for taping movies from the cinema screen, if they're planning to use it for anything other than their own personal viewing... but given that almost no-one does that and that it's illegal anyway, why is it worth passing yet another law? I have a big problem with being threatened with prosecution for merely having a camcorder in a cinema, if that's really the case here.
"Come Armageddon, you will all fold like the paper tigers you are and come home cryin to mommy."
There won't be any Armageddon unless Bush and his moronic supporters manage to create it. That's the scariest thing about the War on Arabs, it seems like a very blatant attempt to Immanentize the Eschaton.
"you know what. pick a side. islam or the USA"
Why should I? I have no quarrel with Arabs in the Middle East: they don't interfere with my life on a daily basis, unlike the US government with its fascist policies.
"because you know, islam will eventually kill YOU"
I have several Muslim friends, and you know what? Not once has any one of them tried to kill me... unlike trigger-happy Americans.
"its the best line ive ever seen drawn in the sand. its even better than the USA vs. the USSR."
Line up folks for the great new sensation: 'Cold War II: US vs Arabs with AKs, RPGs and box-cutters'!
Yawn. It's just another tired remake, a lame excuse to funnel trillions of dollars from hard-working taxpayers to the military-industrial-media complex. Screw that.
"most of the world does not approve of what the US is doing in the war against terror."
Actually I suspect that much of the world does approve of the actual war against terror, but Bush gave up on that long ago. It's the war against Arabs that's pissing us off.
"Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special. Simply existing is not enough. A person can't accomplish a damn thing on their own.
Through unity, there is strength. From strength, comes power. With enough power, anything is possible."
It's so rare to see people openly avowing fascist ideals these days.
"Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus)"
Bush is an idiot, but your very first sentence demonstrates that you have no clue either. The budget was never "balanced" while Clinton was in office: every single year that national debt was at least hundred billion dollars higher at the end of the year than the start. As with pretty much everything else Clinton did, he "balanaced the budget" not by actually, really, spending no more than he took in, but by redefining what "balanced" meant.
"But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state."
ROTFLMAO. You don't correct nearly a decade of economic mismanagement by Clinton in a year or two. Bush's policies have been insane, but the recession was an inevitable result of Clinton's perpetual low-interest-rate policies and the dot bomb speculative bubble they created.
"Government spending in terms of % of GDP is the figure that really gives an idea of spending that was relative to WW2."
Only if you believe that GDP tells you anything meaningful about the real economy: sending in the B2s to bomb New York would cause a huge boost to GDP with all the money spent on bombs, healthcare for bombing victims, and rebuilding the city afterwards, but it would hardly be a sensible economic policy.
"However, investment usually implies a return, and most train companies lose money"
Exactly: most countries screw the taxpayer, who probably just wants better roads to drive their car on, in order to keep the train unions in a job and subsidise rich businessmen taking long-distance train rides. I presume Japan is the same, since the Shinkansen trips I made over there a few years ago cost no more than trips of a similar distance on the clunkers British Rail were running at the time.
"Ironic that the rail revolution made the US what it is today, and it has to be the major economy that has turned its back on rail the most."
Hardly: it should be no surprise that the nation that's quickest to abandon uneconomic technology is the most successful. If only Britain had the same attitude, rather than some Luddite desire to keep trains running no matter how bad and inefficient they may be.
Dammit, there are far too many different bulletin board magic tag schemes these days, I can never remember which one to use where :).
[quote]I just wish the US would invest in more passenger trains.[/quote]
There's a reason why Amtrak is (or was) the only profitable railway network in the world: it runs very few passenger trains. Railways don't like passengers because they're a pain in the ass, expect to get places in a hurry and complain if they're late. Freight is the only thing that makes economic sense on railways, with the exception of a few commuter services in and out of big cities with traffic congestion problems.
[quote]imagine how much fuel/electricity we could save if we could all easily commute by train[/quote]
Imagine how much fuel/electricity is wasted running almost empty trains the rest of the day. If saving fuel and electricity is what you're after, you'd do far better to promote telecommuting than 19th century transport technology.
"In Europe you cannot be strapped to a gurney and executed by the state for any crime."
Why do you think that hard-working taxpayers should have their money stolen to keep that serial rapist and murderer in jail for the fourteen years until the Norwegian legal system apparently sets them free to rape and murder again?
"As for the specific case of double jeopardy, you are taking one tiny aspect of differences in the legal system"
It is _not_ a tiny aspect, it is one of the most crucial and fundamental differences between civilised "innocent until proven guilty" states and barbaric "guilty until proven innocent" states. Yes, America has seen abuses of power in the past, and yes, the lawyers have screwed up the legal system in many ways, but you still know that if you get acquitted you're acquitted, case over, never to be called back again.
As for letting serial killers out of jail after fourteen years, I guess you're lucky that Norway doesn't have many serial killers. That's an insane policy that utterly degrades the value of the life of a murder victim.
"There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice."
There are very good reasons: for example, historically juries in civilised nations have routinely refused to convict people for breaking unpopular laws, effectively providing direct democracy in the jury box. Since the prosecutor can't get a retrial, that person is now free.
This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
"In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!""
Indeed they could. Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials... particularly if that "guilty" person was breaking some bogus law that 90% of the population oppose.
See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent" nations. As bad as some abuses have been in Britain and America, we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people: there are good reasons for that, and our long-standing fear of giving people uncontrolled power is the largest one.
What do you think we meant by "civilised countries"? No country that values the state above the citizens can be considered civilised.
So? If their case wasn't good enough the first time around, why should they get a second chance?
As for the "no jury", I find that even more appalling than the idea of allowing retrials: it's no wonder that countries with such corrupt legal systems suffered such governmental abuse in the last century. Jury trials are the other vital pillar of legal freedom in Anglo nations: if the jury don't like a law, they acquit, and there is nothing the prosecutor can do about it.
""Government abuse" isn't really possible"
A second trial for someone who's been acquitted is _already_ abuse. No free country would allow such a thing, nor consider that the people who make up their government should for one moment be considered trustworthy to have that power: any power given to them will be abused sooner or later, as it is here.
Again, that's the difference between Anglo nations and European nations: we'll take the chance of someone being acquitted improperly before we'll trust the government not to abuse their powers, Europeans trust their governments not to abuse their powers more than someone being acquitted improperly. Oddly enough, the worst government abuses by far in the developed world have happened in... mainland European countries where they trust the governments not to abuse their powers.
"Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal?"
Because there have been numerous cases in history of people being harassed by governments until they went bankrupt or were finally found guilty on a bogus charge. If the government doesn't have the evidence to convict, then it shouldn't be bringing a case... and if that evidence doesn't convict the jury, then they have no grounds for trying a second time.
That you can even consider this a good thing for one second is a clear example of why Europe and the Anglo nations (all of which, I believe, ban such retrials) will never get along. We've never trusted our governments, and for good reason.
An organisation as important as the MPAA can do anything. After all, the entire global economy would just collapse if people could pirate bad movies, therefore it's vital that every nation should surrender to the might of the MPAA.
Again, civilized countries don't let the government appeal an acquittal, which is precisely what's happening here.
This is Europe, silly, no 'innocent until proven guilty' there.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll find that in free countries a defendant can appeal a conviction, but a prosecutor can't appeal an acuittal, precisely in order to prevent government abuse by perpetual retrials.
Shame he chose to write DeCSS in Europe instead.
Personally I thought 'Two Towers' was a better movie than the first one, and the only reason I'm not going to see the final movie at the cinema straight away is because, as with the other two, I'd rather get a DVD and watch the proper version rather than a slashed-up cut for Joe Sixpack... I'll do the cinema thing when one of the London cinemas puts on a marathon showing of the extended versions of all three movies back-to-back.
If I remember correctly my DVD box says that they cut out 43 minutes for the cinema realease of 'Two Towers': it's hard to see what they could have left of the plot with that much removed.