I don't think too many people truly want to forget these people. And I have no problem with the Surgeon General making a public announcement acknowledging a widespread problem.
The part that bothers me is the suggestion that these folks need access to FREE psychiatric help. For cryin' out loud, if we truly want to be a socialist nation, why not just make it official and get it over with. I'm growing quite weary of being told that I live in a free, capitalist country and then having over half of my income stripped away to help out someone's idea of a worthy cause.
It seems to me that Amazon is just another company doing what companies do: trying to make money any way they can. Maybe it's not the noblest of causes, but that's capitalism for you. All things considered, I'd say capitalism has worked pretty well for us, at least better than the alternatives.
It seems to me that the real problem here is the fact that the patent office doesn't seem to have a clue about some of the technology that they are now being asked to evaluate.
As long as the system is screwed up, companies will exploit those flaws to maximize their profits. And that's to be expected. The solution is not boycotting those companies, the solution is to fix the system.
The point of all this is, if something happened that leveled the field for the rest of the animals (no toys for us), I wouldn't wager on the survival of man. Let's hope it never comes to that.
It's already been that way. When our species started the playing field was, in fact, level. No, I take that back. More accurate would be to say that we were at a distinct disadvantage. Yet we managed to develop into what we are today.
If something did happen to level the playing field for the rest of the animals, a couple things would happen. First, the weak and stupid among us would probably find themselves new jobs as dietary supplements. The strong and intelligent among us would adapt, survive, rebuild, and evolve.
In the end, the human race would end up being far better off as a result.
Theft follows the same market princibles as everything else. Relocating means the cost of theft goes up
Depends on how far your talking about relocating. In my city, a trip from a downtown parking ramp to my neighborhood is only about a 20 minute drive. I doubt this is going to significantly impact the price of stolen car parts.
do you think that locking your front door means crime goes down? Or do you settle for relocation of the crime?
In that case, yes, I'll absolutely settle for simple relocation. That's not what we're discussing, though. The issue at hand is decreasing the crime rate for society as a whole.
Now, that being said, I do agree that I wouldn't want cameras posted on every street corner watching everything I do.
That's the problem, though, they already are on every street corner in Britain. One of the mentioned uses was to install these in subway stations. From there, it just snowballs.
"You mean she was mugged only fifty feet from a subway station where the video cameras could have helped catch the guy? Maybe we should install them on all the downtown streets, too."
"If only my car had been stolen downtown instead of from my driveway. We really need some of those video cameras in the residential areas, too."
"It's too bad she was raped inside her house where there are no video cameras, just imagine how much crime we could prevent if we put surveillance cameras in people's homes. We've got them everywhere else anyway, so what's the difference?"
Once we reach this point, it could be argued that objecting to the installation of a video camera in your bedroom signified a pro-crime stance since a crime *could possibly* happen there, and *if* it did, the video footage *might* make it easier to apprehend the criminal and *possibly* making it less likely that he'd commit a similar crime in the future.
OK, maybe that's a bit far fetched. The point is that it all boils down to a question of where we draw the line. Personally, I think we've already gone too far.
If a guard walks by everytime you start casing something you will quickly move to a less guarded place.
Great, so now instead of stealing cars from the parking ramp downtown, these guys are now stealing cars out of the driveways in my neighborhood. This should make me happy?
Scaring away a thief doesn't prevent crime, it simply relocates it.
I also don't think a guard walking by would offend innocents either.
Walking by, no. Standing around and eyeing me suspiciously while I sit on the hood of my own car and wait for my girlfriend to come out of the mall, absolutely.
That's not as bad as the 'iMac Compatible' power strips, printer cables, telephone cords, keyboards, mouses, and everything else that is Bondi Blue and hence 'iMac Compatible'. Yeesh....
One of my all time favorites was the power strip that also provided surge suppresion for the phone line and was, therefore, labeled as "Internet Ready."
Sure, I've seen more ridiculous marketing ploys, but nothing has had me doubled over laughing right in the middle of CompUSA the way that one did.:-)
It's also only a matter of time before you are stopped on the street for having long hair and a tattoo.
It already happens, and you don't even need the tattoo. When I was in college (I had long hair then) I went for a walk to clear my head after an argument with my girlfriend. I was stopped by an officer and ordered to go home and cool off "before you hurt anybody." Sure, I was a little annoyed, and in a bad mood, but I was definitely not a threat to anyone. So, apparently, the freedom to walk on a public sidewalk now requires that you be in a cheerful mood.
Those who have always adhered to the norms have no concept of the abuses of police power that happen every day.
They simply need some prodding to realize that high technology (which they are assured is "their friend")
This is actually a big problem that needs to be addressed. The average person today views computers (and technology in general) as some infallible sort of black magic.
While those of us who actually work with computers understand the huge potential for error with a system like this, your average technologically illiterate judge or juror is VERY likely to be perfectly satisfied with a statement like "The computer said so."
Just take a walk around your local Wal-Mart and see how many packages boast that the product inside was "Computer designed." I once saw an infomercial for a frying pan that was supposed to have been "Computer designed." What does that mean? Most likely, it means someone drew a picture of it in MS-Paint.:-) But to the average person, it means someone sat down in front of a magic box, typed the command "design perfect frying pan", and this product is the magical result. (I'm surprised they didn't also proclaim the pan to be "Internet ready" and "Designed for Windows98")
As we move into a world that becomes more and more dependant on computers every day, it is crucial that we eliminate some of the mystique around them.
If however these computers can recognize a bunch of guys in ski-masks drawing up outside the bank and clal th police then we are in a wholey diffrent ball game.
Depends on where you live. Here in the Midwest where it gets extremely cold in the winter, pulling up to the bank (and even walking in) while wearing a ski mask wouldn't necessarily be cause for concern.
Now, if you've still got it on when you get to the teller window, we might be talking about something different.:-)
but the impression that I'm geting is that you guys are living in a Police State similar to that of the former Soviet Union - come on... tell me this isn't true?
It's not quite that bad just yet, but it is moving steadily in that direction. It's not surprising, being in the UK, that you'd not be able to see it happening. Heck, the average American doesn't care enough to see what's going on. It's being done in baby steps, little by little. One seemingly harmless law here, to protect the children. Another there, to make our streets safer. Oh, and we need this nice little regulation to help fight drugs. Taken individually, each one doesn't seem like much of a big deal. Look at them as a group, and you'll see significant attacks against personal liberties. (I've been thinking about writing a paper on the subject. Haven't really found enough spare time yet.)
The strong reactions you see from some of the more patriotic Americans here are only partially due to the current state of affairs. Mostly, I'd say, the reactions are about what the future will be like if current trends are allowed to continue.
Accidently watching you while you are not doing something illegal will not hurt you in any way, shape or form.
Sure it does. It strips away more of my freedom, and it is an invasion into my privacy. I consider both of those items to be things that harm me.
However it seems this system could help stop more criminals
Eh, probably not as much as you'd think. People are fairly adaptive creatures. Once the criminals figured out these things were in place, they'd find ways around it. Not to mention the horrendous time they will have dealing with false-positives when people like me intentionally walk circles around a car just for fun.
You're innocent until they see you do something illegal.
Then this system is useless for preventing crime. If they have to wait until you commit a crime to approach you, then this system doesn't really improve over the current situation. If they don't wait until you commit a crime to approach you, then this system encourages unnecessary harrassment of innocent citizens, and is therefore unacceptable.
Not if it is your car. Have you ever had a car stolen?
Yep, sure have. It was a bit of a hassle, but nothing so bad that it would make me want to consent to this sort of monitoring. In fact, nothing so bad as to make me think anything needs to be changed at all.
Is not having an automated camera at the right place worth a few lives as well?
Nope, it's the other way around. Freedom is worth a few lost lives. And before you ask, I still stand by this statement if it ends up being my life.
I don't really see how a camera with intelligence is worse than a dumb camera--you're still being watched, except that crimes are detected more effectively.
OK, first, I'm not all that fond of dumb cameras, either.
Second, this is MUCH worse because it will flag you to be watched and harrassed for nothing more than not acting like a "normal" person. I see no reason why I should be bothered by police simply because I decide to take a walk around my car before I get in.
Somehow, this really bothers me. I fully support any software author's right to distribute his code under any terms he sees fit.
BUT...
When you release a piece of software under the GPL, there have come to be certain expectations about how things will work. One expectation that I have is that the software will be fully functional.
This search engine is GPL in only the most technical sense. It is certainly not GPL in spirit. What we have here is just good old-fashioned shareware. It's free enough to test it out, but if you really want to make use of it, it's going to cost you. That's certainly not how I've come to expect things to work when I run GPL'd software.
These guys have every right in the world to make some cash from their hard work. I just wish they'd use a licensing scheme that more closely reflected the way they are doing business.
Look, I sure don't know what the whining is about.
It's probably mostly about the fact that it's been a really long day and I'm in a crappy mood.:-)
It still seems to me, though, that if we're going to have different moderation categories, folks should make a reasonable attempt to apply them appropriately.
The other thing about moderation that annoys me is that a lot of topics now contain more posts bitching about moderation than commenting on the story. And here I am contributing to that. Hmm... I'll shut up now.
Yes, but I have recently purchased the Copyrights to all of the legal forms that you will be needing when you file your patents.
When can I expect to recieve your payment?
(If you're really planning to patent everything you see we could probably work out some sort of bulk purchase discount on the forms you will be needing.)
OK, personally I think that comment should have either been left alone, or moderated up as "Funny." (Although I didn't feel quite so strongly as to waste a moderator point on it:-)
But, if you feel the need to moderate it down, then PLEASE use an appropriate reason. That post was clearly "Offtopic", or even just "Overrated." I honestly cannot see how anyone could read that post and consider it "Flamebait."
(I'll now go beat myself about the head with a hammer as punishment for getting sucked into the whole "bitching about moderation" thing.)
When you hire a lawyer to reduce your credit bill, ALL THEY DO IS TELL THE CRED PPL NOT TO CALL YOU.
Pretty much true. Now here's what makes this a particularly nasty scam: You don't need a lawyer for this at all. If a collection agent calls you on the phone and you explicitly request that they not contact you by phone again (although it is even better to send a cease and desist letter), they are bound by law to honor that request. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean they have to stop trying to collect the debt, they can still send all the letters they want, it just means they can't call you on the phone anymore.
Another interesting scam is credit repair. Basically, all they do here is send a letter to the credit bureau disputing the validity of the negative information on your credit report. Upon receiving this dispute, the credit bureau is obligated to contact the institution that reported it within a certain amount of time and verify the accuracy. The reporting institution is then obligated to either confirm the debt or request that it be removed / corrected. If these events do not occur within the specified time periods, the credit bureau is obligated by law to remove all mention of the disputed information from your file. Basically, this process relies on the hope that someone along the way will get lazy and blow off the paperwork. Strange as it sounds, this actually works much of the time. It is not, however, necessary or desireable to hire a lawyer or credit repair specialist to do these things for you. We're just talking about mailing off a two or three sentence letter here, hardly the sort of thing that requires legal help.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that these credit repair guys can do that you can't do yourself if your willing to spend about an hour reading about the relevant regulations.
DISCLAIMER: While I did work in a couple of collection departments while in college, and therefore beleive what I've said to be accurate, that was quite a while ago, so feel free to correct any inaccurate information presented here.
but she'll never be able to have a credit card again, buy a house, buy a car, or send her children to college on loans.
Not necessarily true. When I was in college, I help part time jobs in the credit departments of a couple of major department stores. You need to remember that the collection departments task is to recover as much money as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, our performance was evaluated almost solely on the number of dollars we brought in each week. When it became clear that a particular individual was not going to pay, it was commonplace to offer to wipe out the debt at a reduced rate, after all fifty cents on the dollar is better than nothing. If the debtor in question had the presence of mind to ask that we also remove any negative information from his credit report, we'd agree to it without much hesitation at all.
Of course, he'd never get credit from us again, since his account history stayed in our computers, but noone else would ever know of his payment history with us.
Not saying this is the norm, just that it does, in fact, happen. I also wouldn't recommend actually trying to make use of this as a method of acquiring cheap goods and services. However, if you do ever find yourself in financial trouble, keep in mind that the collection folks are usually MUCH more willing to negotiate than one would think at first.
the sattalite providers can no longer provide the network feeds, for the simple reason that the local affiliates lose the advertisment time in your home.
This seems like one more shining example of big business throwing their weight around and actually achieving the exact opposite of what they intend.
Since I got my satellite disk (about 6 months now) I have not watched a local TV station EVEN ONCE. I probably would if they were broadcast over satellite, but I'm not willing to tolerate the poor reception I get now that I ditched my cable TV.
I'm not sure how my abandoning their networks altogether preserves any advertising time for them. Oh well, can't say any of the big 4 networks were broadcasting anything that I really miss anyway....
I think ultimatly it will help the record companies more than hurting them. Or at least the indie artist.
You've just stumbled across the point here. MP3 will, in fact, help the indie artist. This is precisely the reason it needs to be stopped.
Think about it, people have been copying music for years. Never been a big fuss about it before. No industry wide crack-down on manufacturers of cassette recorders. Record labels DO NOT lose all that much money due to illegal copying, and they know it. Music piracy is not the threat they are fighting off here, regardless of what their press releases claim.
They are also not trying to protect artists. How do record labels make their money? By exploiting artists, not protecting them. Now all of a sudden there is a way for budding artists to distribute their music on a large scale WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM. This is the threat that the RIAA is attempting to fight off. The problem with MP3 is not piracy, it is the fact that it allows artists to distribute music and deny the record labels their cut.
Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.
What a happy day that would be if it were to come. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will. The prosperity that our nation has enjoyed has had an unexpected, and unfortunate, side-effect: People don't want to do anything for themselves anymore. Why raise and butcher a steer when McDonald's has hamburgers already cooked up and ready to eat? Why learn to change the oil in your car when the Sears Auto Center will do it for $15? Why mow your lawn and shovel your walk when you can just move into a condo where these things are taken care of for you? Why think for yourself when MSNBC is right there ready and willing to tell you exactly what to think? Those of us who see the perverse relevance of those questions are, unfortunately, a minority. People today don't want freedom from oppression, they want freedom from responsibility.
Nope, not in this age. We'll just express outrage today then vote the same people into office because they belong to the party that once held the ideals we believed in.
No, we won't even express any outrage, because most folks like the way things are. The "average" American finds things like Echelon *comforting*, not *threatening*. These are the same people who believe that our government is still the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" institution that they were told it was in high school history class, that the 10:00 news is showing them an unbiased view of the information they are being spoonfed, and that the police will protect them from the bad guys.
The problem is that the comfort they derive from these beliefs is so powerful that they will not give them up, no matter how irrefutable the evidence that you put in front of them. Show them government corruption, they'll label you an anarchist. Show them media bias, they'll call you a propogandist. Demonstrate to them that the police are powerless to protect them from an armed intruder in their home, they'll stick their fingers in their ears and hum loud tunes until you go away.
As far as voting the same people into office, yeah, it'll happen. Won't be as a result of my vote, though. Most elections I only vote for one or two offices and leave most of the ballot blank. Some people feel comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd prefer to withhold my vote altogether than to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my ideals.
It's ludicrous to say that the NSA is doing a "pretty good job" just because the incidence of terrorism in the US is low
Which brings up an interesting point. How likely is it that we would see a sudden increase in terrorist activity should Congress decide to play with the NSA's budget? What better way to justify your own existence than to go out and create some of the very same problems that you are supposed to be solving.
Which brings up yet another interesting point. Has this already happened?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think too many people truly want to forget these people. And I have no problem with the Surgeon General making a public announcement acknowledging a widespread problem.
The part that bothers me is the suggestion that these folks need access to FREE psychiatric help. For cryin' out loud, if we truly want to be a socialist nation, why not just make it official and get it over with. I'm growing quite weary of being told that I live in a free, capitalist country and then having over half of my income stripped away to help out someone's idea of a worthy cause.
It seems to me that Amazon is just another company doing what companies do: trying to make money any way they can. Maybe it's not the noblest of causes, but that's capitalism for you. All things considered, I'd say capitalism has worked pretty well for us, at least better than the alternatives.
It seems to me that the real problem here is the fact that the patent office doesn't seem to have a clue about some of the technology that they are now being asked to evaluate.
As long as the system is screwed up, companies will exploit those flaws to maximize their profits. And that's to be expected. The solution is not boycotting those companies, the solution is to fix the system.
The point of all this is, if something happened that leveled the field for the rest of the animals (no toys for us), I wouldn't wager on the survival of man. Let's hope it never comes to that.
It's already been that way. When our species started the playing field was, in fact, level. No, I take that back. More accurate would be to say that we were at a distinct disadvantage. Yet we managed to develop into what we are today.
If something did happen to level the playing field for the rest of the animals, a couple things would happen. First, the weak and stupid among us would probably find themselves new jobs as dietary supplements. The strong and intelligent among us would adapt, survive, rebuild, and evolve.
In the end, the human race would end up being far better off as a result.
Theft follows the same market princibles as everything else. Relocating means the cost of theft goes up
Depends on how far your talking about relocating. In my city, a trip from a downtown parking ramp to my neighborhood is only about a 20 minute drive. I doubt this is going to significantly impact the price of stolen car parts.
do you think that locking your front door means crime goes down? Or do you settle for relocation of the crime?
In that case, yes, I'll absolutely settle for simple relocation. That's not what we're discussing, though. The issue at hand is decreasing the crime rate for society as a whole.
Now, that being said, I do agree that I wouldn't want cameras posted on every street corner watching everything I do.
That's the problem, though, they already are on every street corner in Britain. One of the mentioned uses was to install these in subway stations. From there, it just snowballs.
"You mean she was mugged only fifty feet from a subway station where the video cameras could have helped catch the guy? Maybe we should install them on all the downtown streets, too."
"If only my car had been stolen downtown instead of from my driveway. We really need some of those video cameras in the residential areas, too."
"It's too bad she was raped inside her house where there are no video cameras, just imagine how much crime we could prevent if we put surveillance cameras in people's homes. We've got them everywhere else anyway, so what's the difference?"
Once we reach this point, it could be argued that objecting to the installation of a video camera in your bedroom signified a pro-crime stance since a crime *could possibly* happen there, and *if* it did, the video footage *might* make it easier to apprehend the criminal and *possibly* making it less likely that he'd commit a similar crime in the future.
OK, maybe that's a bit far fetched. The point is that it all boils down to a question of where we draw the line. Personally, I think we've already gone too far.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
If a guard walks by everytime you start casing something you will quickly move to a less guarded place.
Great, so now instead of stealing cars from the parking ramp downtown, these guys are now stealing cars out of the driveways in my neighborhood. This should make me happy?
Scaring away a thief doesn't prevent crime, it simply relocates it.
I also don't think a guard walking by would offend innocents either.
Walking by, no. Standing around and eyeing me suspiciously while I sit on the hood of my own car and wait for my girlfriend to come out of the mall, absolutely.
That's not as bad as the 'iMac Compatible' power strips, printer cables, telephone cords, keyboards, mouses, and everything else that is Bondi Blue and hence 'iMac Compatible'. Yeesh....
:-)
One of my all time favorites was the power strip that also provided surge suppresion for the phone line and was, therefore, labeled as "Internet Ready."
Sure, I've seen more ridiculous marketing ploys, but nothing has had me doubled over laughing right in the middle of CompUSA the way that one did.
It's also only a matter of time before you are stopped on the street for having long hair and a tattoo.
It already happens, and you don't even need the tattoo. When I was in college (I had long hair then) I went for a walk to clear my head after an argument with my girlfriend. I was stopped by an officer and ordered to go home and cool off "before you hurt anybody." Sure, I was a little annoyed, and in a bad mood, but I was definitely not a threat to anyone. So, apparently, the freedom to walk on a public sidewalk now requires that you be in a cheerful mood.
Those who have always adhered to the norms have no concept of the abuses of police power that happen every day.
They simply need some prodding to realize that high technology (which they are assured is "their friend")
:-) But to the average person, it means someone sat down in front of a magic box, typed the command "design perfect frying pan", and this product is the magical result. (I'm surprised they didn't also proclaim the pan to be "Internet ready" and "Designed for Windows98")
This is actually a big problem that needs to be addressed. The average person today views computers (and technology in general) as some infallible sort of black magic.
While those of us who actually work with computers understand the huge potential for error with a system like this, your average technologically illiterate judge or juror is VERY likely to be perfectly satisfied with a statement like "The computer said so."
Just take a walk around your local Wal-Mart and see how many packages boast that the product inside was "Computer designed." I once saw an infomercial for a frying pan that was supposed to have been "Computer designed." What does that mean? Most likely, it means someone drew a picture of it in MS-Paint.
As we move into a world that becomes more and more dependant on computers every day, it is crucial that we eliminate some of the mystique around them.
If however these computers can recognize a bunch of guys in ski-masks drawing up outside the bank and clal th police then we are in a wholey diffrent ball game.
:-)
Depends on where you live. Here in the Midwest where it gets extremely cold in the winter, pulling up to the bank (and even walking in) while wearing a ski mask wouldn't necessarily be cause for concern.
Now, if you've still got it on when you get to the teller window, we might be talking about something different.
but the impression that I'm geting is that you guys are living in a Police State similar to that of the former Soviet Union - come on... tell me this isn't true?
It's not quite that bad just yet, but it is moving steadily in that direction. It's not surprising, being in the UK, that you'd not be able to see it happening. Heck, the average American doesn't care enough to see what's going on. It's being done in baby steps, little by little. One seemingly harmless law here, to protect the children. Another there, to make our streets safer. Oh, and we need this nice little regulation to help fight drugs. Taken individually, each one doesn't seem like much of a big deal. Look at them as a group, and you'll see significant attacks against personal liberties. (I've been thinking about writing a paper on the subject. Haven't really found enough spare time yet.)
The strong reactions you see from some of the more patriotic Americans here are only partially due to the current state of affairs. Mostly, I'd say, the reactions are about what the future will be like if current trends are allowed to continue.
Accidently watching you while you are not doing something illegal will not hurt you in any way, shape or form.
Sure it does. It strips away more of my freedom, and it is an invasion into my privacy. I consider both of those items to be things that harm me.
However it seems this system could help stop more criminals
Eh, probably not as much as you'd think. People are fairly adaptive creatures. Once the criminals figured out these things were in place, they'd find ways around it. Not to mention the horrendous time they will have dealing with false-positives when people like me intentionally walk circles around a car just for fun.
You're innocent until they see you do something illegal.
Then this system is useless for preventing crime. If they have to wait until you commit a crime to approach you, then this system doesn't really improve over the current situation. If they don't wait until you commit a crime to approach you, then this system encourages unnecessary harrassment of innocent citizens, and is therefore unacceptable.
Not if it is your car. Have you ever had a car stolen?
Yep, sure have. It was a bit of a hassle, but nothing so bad that it would make me want to consent to this sort of monitoring. In fact, nothing so bad as to make me think anything needs to be changed at all.
Is not having an automated camera at the right place worth a few lives as well?
Nope, it's the other way around. Freedom is worth a few lost lives. And before you ask, I still stand by this statement if it ends up being my life.
I don't really see how a camera with intelligence is worse than a dumb camera--you're still being watched, except that crimes are detected more effectively.
OK, first, I'm not all that fond of dumb cameras, either.
Second, this is MUCH worse because it will flag you to be watched and harrassed for nothing more than not acting like a "normal" person. I see no reason why I should be bothered by police simply because I decide to take a walk around my car before I get in.
Hmm... I own some duct tape. I'm pretty darn good at connecting two (or even more, on a good day) wires. And I walk fast (long legs, I can't help it.)
:-)
Maybe I should just turn myself in now.
Somehow, this really bothers me. I fully support any software author's right to distribute his code under any terms he sees fit.
BUT...
When you release a piece of software under the GPL, there have come to be certain expectations about how things will work. One expectation that I have is that the software will be fully functional.
This search engine is GPL in only the most technical sense. It is certainly not GPL in spirit. What we have here is just good old-fashioned shareware. It's free enough to test it out, but if you really want to make use of it, it's going to cost you. That's certainly not how I've come to expect things to work when I run GPL'd software.
These guys have every right in the world to make some cash from their hard work. I just wish they'd use a licensing scheme that more closely reflected the way they are doing business.
Or am I just nuts?
Look, I sure don't know what the whining is about.
:-)
It's probably mostly about the fact that it's been a really long day and I'm in a crappy mood.
It still seems to me, though, that if we're going to have different moderation categories, folks should make a reasonable attempt to apply them appropriately.
The other thing about moderation that annoys me is that a lot of topics now contain more posts bitching about moderation than commenting on the story. And here I am contributing to that. Hmm... I'll shut up now.
Yes, but I have recently purchased the Copyrights to all of the legal forms that you will be needing when you file your patents.
When can I expect to recieve your payment?
(If you're really planning to patent everything you see we could probably work out some sort of bulk purchase discount on the forms you will be needing.)
OK, personally I think that comment should have either been left alone, or moderated up as "Funny." (Although I didn't feel quite so strongly as to waste a moderator point on it :-)
But, if you feel the need to moderate it down, then PLEASE use an appropriate reason. That post was clearly "Offtopic", or even just "Overrated." I honestly cannot see how anyone could read that post and consider it "Flamebait."
(I'll now go beat myself about the head with a hammer as punishment for getting sucked into the whole "bitching about moderation" thing.)
When you hire a lawyer to reduce your credit bill, ALL THEY DO IS TELL THE CRED PPL NOT TO CALL YOU.
Pretty much true. Now here's what makes this a particularly nasty scam: You don't need a lawyer for this at all. If a collection agent calls you on the phone and you explicitly request that they not contact you by phone again (although it is even better to send a cease and desist letter), they are bound by law to honor that request. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean they have to stop trying to collect the debt, they can still send all the letters they want, it just means they can't call you on the phone anymore.
Another interesting scam is credit repair. Basically, all they do here is send a letter to the credit bureau disputing the validity of the negative information on your credit report. Upon receiving this dispute, the credit bureau is obligated to contact the institution that reported it within a certain amount of time and verify the accuracy. The reporting institution is then obligated to either confirm the debt or request that it be removed / corrected. If these events do not occur within the specified time periods, the credit bureau is obligated by law to remove all mention of the disputed information from your file. Basically, this process relies on the hope that someone along the way will get lazy and blow off the paperwork. Strange as it sounds, this actually works much of the time. It is not, however, necessary or desireable to hire a lawyer or credit repair specialist to do these things for you. We're just talking about mailing off a two or three sentence letter here, hardly the sort of thing that requires legal help.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that these credit repair guys can do that you can't do yourself if your willing to spend about an hour reading about the relevant regulations.
DISCLAIMER: While I did work in a couple of collection departments while in college, and therefore beleive what I've said to be accurate, that was quite a while ago, so feel free to correct any inaccurate information presented here.
but she'll never be able to have a credit card again, buy a house, buy a car, or send her children to college on loans.
Not necessarily true. When I was in college, I help part time jobs in the credit departments of a couple of major department stores. You need to remember that the collection departments task is to recover as much money as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, our performance was evaluated almost solely on the number of dollars we brought in each week. When it became clear that a particular individual was not going to pay, it was commonplace to offer to wipe out the debt at a reduced rate, after all fifty cents on the dollar is better than nothing. If the debtor in question had the presence of mind to ask that we also remove any negative information from his credit report, we'd agree to it without much hesitation at all.
Of course, he'd never get credit from us again, since his account history stayed in our computers, but noone else would ever know of his payment history with us.
Not saying this is the norm, just that it does, in fact, happen. I also wouldn't recommend actually trying to make use of this as a method of acquiring cheap goods and services. However, if you do ever find yourself in financial trouble, keep in mind that the collection folks are usually MUCH more willing to negotiate than one would think at first.
the sattalite providers can no longer provide the network feeds, for the simple reason that the local affiliates lose the advertisment time in your home.
This seems like one more shining example of big business throwing their weight around and actually achieving the exact opposite of what they intend.
Since I got my satellite disk (about 6 months now) I have not watched a local TV station EVEN ONCE. I probably would if they were broadcast over satellite, but I'm not willing to tolerate the poor reception I get now that I ditched my cable TV.
I'm not sure how my abandoning their networks altogether preserves any advertising time for them. Oh well, can't say any of the big 4 networks were broadcasting anything that I really miss anyway....
I think ultimatly it will help the record companies more than hurting them. Or at least the indie artist.
You've just stumbled across the point here. MP3 will, in fact, help the indie artist. This is precisely the reason it needs to be stopped.
Think about it, people have been copying music for years. Never been a big fuss about it before. No industry wide crack-down on manufacturers of cassette recorders. Record labels DO NOT lose all that much money due to illegal copying, and they know it. Music piracy is not the threat they are fighting off here, regardless of what their press releases claim.
They are also not trying to protect artists. How do record labels make their money? By exploiting artists, not protecting them. Now all of a sudden there is a way for budding artists to distribute their music on a large scale WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM. This is the threat that the RIAA is attempting to fight off. The problem with MP3 is not piracy, it is the fact that it allows artists to distribute music and deny the record labels their cut.
Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.
What a happy day that would be if it were to come. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will. The prosperity that our nation has enjoyed has had an unexpected, and unfortunate, side-effect: People don't want to do anything for themselves anymore. Why raise and butcher a steer when McDonald's has hamburgers already cooked up and ready to eat? Why learn to change the oil in your car when the Sears Auto Center will do it for $15? Why mow your lawn and shovel your walk when you can just move into a condo where these things are taken care of for you? Why think for yourself when MSNBC is right there ready and willing to tell you exactly what to think? Those of us who see the perverse relevance of those questions are, unfortunately, a minority. People today don't want freedom from oppression, they want freedom from responsibility.
Nope, not in this age. We'll just express outrage today then vote the same people into office because they belong to the party that once held the ideals we believed in.
No, we won't even express any outrage, because most folks like the way things are. The "average" American finds things like Echelon *comforting*, not *threatening*. These are the same people who believe that our government is still the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" institution that they were told it was in high school history class, that the 10:00 news is showing them an unbiased view of the information they are being spoonfed, and that the police will protect them from the bad guys.
The problem is that the comfort they derive from these beliefs is so powerful that they will not give them up, no matter how irrefutable the evidence that you put in front of them. Show them government corruption, they'll label you an anarchist. Show them media bias, they'll call you a propogandist. Demonstrate to them that the police are powerless to protect them from an armed intruder in their home, they'll stick their fingers in their ears and hum loud tunes until you go away.
As far as voting the same people into office, yeah, it'll happen. Won't be as a result of my vote, though. Most elections I only vote for one or two offices and leave most of the ballot blank. Some people feel comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd prefer to withhold my vote altogether than to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my ideals.
It's ludicrous to say that the NSA is doing a "pretty good job" just because the incidence of terrorism in the US is low
Which brings up an interesting point. How likely is it that we would see a sudden increase in terrorist activity should Congress decide to play with the NSA's budget? What better way to justify your own existence than to go out and create some of the very same problems that you are supposed to be solving.
Which brings up yet another interesting point. Has this already happened?