When is the price of dual-layer media coming down?! I'd love to buy a dual-layer drive, but until the costs of blanks come WAY down, I don't see much point.
Do you think Sony could be keeping the price high to save its DVD sales division?!
If Japan refused to build plants and employ US citizens, you'd complain that Japan's ecomomic system was too closed. But when Japan does set up factories here, you call them military bases. You're either crazy or are kidding. I'm hoping it's the latter but I'm probably wrong.
Oh, and one more thing. There are many people like you who believed that liberalism started in the 60s. It didn't!!! Have you ever heard of the New Deal?! Heck, my long dead grandparents met in an actual Communist hall in Michigan!
But the Christian right will die off first. In the US the fastest growing "religion" is made up of people who pick no religion. "None" in Oregon make up 60% of the population of 20 year olds.
And sure maybe some of these "nones" will eventually choose a religion, but even that doesn't bode well for the religious right: Religion used to be an irrefutable belief that was passed down from generation to generation. Now it's becoming, at best, something to choose in the same way we choose our clothing: Something convenient that suits our lifestyle.
Let's face it, we haven't really helped Europe since WWII. Keeping our troops in Europe during the cold war was to protect us, not them. Ask yourself if you'd feel safer if Japan had a military base right next door to your house?
So you have to remember that since nearly everyone we helped back then is dead, it is not surprising that those who are alive and are in power don't see us as a kind neighbor.
So why do I want to please Europe? An as attorney I deal with a lot of property disputes between neighbors. They are never pleasant. It's almost certain that one neighbor ends up moving to avoid the conflict. In our situation we can't move. Thus I'd rather be on good terms with the rest of the world. I'm not saying we should submit to Europe's desires. But I see no reason to actively piss them off either.
This election is HIGHLY polarized. You're right that the press fuels such polarization as it pushes the extremes to help ratings. But I think the election would be polarized regardless of that.
There are many christians who literaly believe that Bush is on a mission from God. It's hard not to be polarized when God is on your side.
There are also many who strongly believe that a vote against Bush is a vote in favor of terrorism.
However, there are many others who see Iraq as a waste of lives and money. And who see the patriot act and "free speech zones" as contrary to what the US is about. What's the point of winning against terrorists if we lose our basis rights in the process?!
My guess is that our nation will continue to be polarized until the conservative christian right dies off.
Heck, I can't belived I missed something SO simple. You say "Publishing lies would break many laws, which woulh have you arrested by government police, held in a government prison..."
If you are correct, then what are you bitching about?! You WANT people incarcerated for violating "the truth" but yet you aruge that people CAN be incarcerated for violating "the truth." Can you explain exactly what you want?!
"There were already at least 2 books published..."
So you're saying that throughout the history of mankind there were ALWAYS people who thought that the earth revolved around the sun?!
"I talked about a jury for a very simple reason. In a trial, other than the defendant, EVERY other party is part of the government..."
Strange, I deal with CIVIL lawsuits everyday and I never see the government involved at all. In addition to the "Defendant" there is also this entity called the "Plaintiff" which brings lawsuits.
"That is absolutely untrue. Publishing lies would break many laws, which woulh have you arrested by government police, held in a government prison, prosecuted by a government district attorney, mediated by a government judge, etc."
Name ONE criminal law.
"Only lying in a political ad."
So you admit, that you want to live in a country where people can be jailed for making political statements which were mandated by the government as untrue. Now that we've got our positions correct, It's quite easy to see who the troll really is.
Name one thing you've disproved?! You asked a simple question and I answered it. The US constitution says what it says. You may disagree with it, but the best you can do is to work and change it.
I wrote the virus which made the whole world cringe. I wrote the virus which screwed up things I wrote the virus that made system administrators cry I wrote the virus, I wrote the virus
We already have this system in place. How is your different? If someone is lying a person could civily sue to enjoin them from continuing to make the statements.
"No, it was entirely an assumption."
At the time NO one believed it was an "entirely an assumption."
"Yes, we are."
If someone tells a lie against you, you could sue for dafamation, false light, and to enjoin the statements from being made.
"And government employees are never on juries?"
Gee, I'm begining to think you're a moron. Merely because government employees are on a jury DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS BRINGING THE LAWSUIT!!!!
"You should try that out on the witness stand and see how that holds up."
Perjury is different, and you (should) know it. What I mean is that I can write a book filled will lies about Kerry or Bush and the government could NEVER stop me. Never. Kerry or Bush might sue me, but the government would be powerless.
If you want to change the Constitution to include the following: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the government decides that certain speech is untrue, in which case the government can come down on their asses like a ton of bricks."
Amending the Constitution is the ONLY means you have to carry out your goal. If that's your choice, you'd better get busy.
BTW, you never explained how you'd get people to stop lying. If you're only talking about monetary damages, that would not shut people up. They'd just hide their money. The only way your system would work if violators of "the truth" were jailed. And I'll ask again, is that the country you want to live in?
"Either what you are saying is true, or it is not."
But who decides?!
"saying so isn't going to get you arrested by any means."
Then how are you going to enforce your desire to stop people lying in politcal ads?!
"blatantly clear cases."
At one time it was "blatantly clear" that the sun revolved around the earth.
"they need to be held accountable."
But not through jail time, just a slap on the wrist?!
"The current liability-free bullshit system cannot possibly continue."
We are not currently in a "liability-free" system. We still have civil causes of action such as defamation, false light, etc. These are not decided by the government, but by the people acting as jurors.
Excluding commerical speech, in the US we have the right to free speech and that INCLUDES lying. We might be sued in civil court, but the government cannot stop it.
And I don't want the government sorting it out. Here's a good example: Were you with either Kerry or Bush the entire time they served or allegedly served their country in the military? If you weren't, you don't know first hand what happened. You'd want a commision to get together and determine what happened then have it mandate the "truth." If anyone was caught violating the "truth", i.e., expresing an opinion different from the "truth" they'd be arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply move to Iran. It appears the government there can stop "false" political speech!3
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=1941
Wow, that's great news. I guess I should have actually read the article.
No, I'm not being sarcastic:4 A.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/10170
To date myself, I remember when the cost of a CD burner finally went under a thousand dollars. At the time I thought it was a GREAT price.
Heck, I remember when 16 megs of RAM cost $600! When it got down to 200 bucks I bought it. My old 133MHz Pentium had 32 megs and screamed!
Yeah, but I already have a 4X Sony burner I'm happy with, so there is no point in buying a new one.
I hope that by the time dual layer blanks are cheap 4x or even 8x dual layer burners will be available.
If dual-layer blanks were about a buck or less, I'd still buy a dual-layer drive. At the worst I'd burn when I was sleeping or at work.
The ability to make an exact back-up of my DVDs would be worth the length of time it took to burn them.
When is the price of dual-layer media coming down?! I'd love to buy a dual-layer drive, but until the costs of blanks come WAY down, I don't see much point.
Do you think Sony could be keeping the price high to save its DVD sales division?!
If Japan refused to build plants and employ US citizens, you'd complain that Japan's ecomomic system was too closed. But when Japan does set up factories here, you call them military bases. You're either crazy or are kidding. I'm hoping it's the latter but I'm probably wrong.
Oh, and one more thing. There are many people like you who believed that liberalism started in the 60s. It didn't!!! Have you ever heard of the New Deal?! Heck, my long dead grandparents met in an actual Communist hall in Michigan!
But the Christian right will die off first. In the US the fastest growing "religion" is made up of people who pick no religion. "None" in Oregon make up 60% of the population of 20 year olds.
And sure maybe some of these "nones" will eventually choose a religion, but even that doesn't bode well for the religious right: Religion used to be an irrefutable belief that was passed down from generation to generation. Now it's becoming, at best, something to choose in the same way we choose our clothing: Something convenient that suits our lifestyle.
Let's face it, we haven't really helped Europe since WWII. Keeping our troops in Europe during the cold war was to protect us, not them. Ask yourself if you'd feel safer if Japan had a military base right next door to your house?
So you have to remember that since nearly everyone we helped back then is dead, it is not surprising that those who are alive and are in power don't see us as a kind neighbor.
So why do I want to please Europe? An as attorney I deal with a lot of property disputes between neighbors. They are never pleasant. It's almost certain that one neighbor ends up moving to avoid the conflict. In our situation we can't move. Thus I'd rather be on good terms with the rest of the world. I'm not saying we should submit to Europe's desires. But I see no reason to actively piss them off either.
This election is HIGHLY polarized. You're right that the press fuels such polarization as it pushes the extremes to help ratings. But I think the election would be polarized regardless of that.
There are many christians who literaly believe that Bush is on a mission from God. It's hard not to be polarized when God is on your side.
There are also many who strongly believe that a vote against Bush is a vote in favor of terrorism.
However, there are many others who see Iraq as a waste of lives and money. And who see the patriot act and "free speech zones" as contrary to what the US is about. What's the point of winning against terrorists if we lose our basis rights in the process?!
My guess is that our nation will continue to be polarized until the conservative christian right dies off.
I sure in heck hope you're kidding. As an American I can assure you that most people I know do not think this way.
He can't. No.
But that's our history. Even amoung our most popular presidents you'll find large numbers of people who hated them. E.g., Regan, JFK, etc.
Heck, I can't belived I missed something SO simple. You say "Publishing lies would break many laws, which woulh have you arrested by government police, held in a government prison..."
If you are correct, then what are you bitching about?! You WANT people incarcerated for violating "the truth" but yet you aruge that people CAN be incarcerated for violating "the truth." Can you explain exactly what you want?!
"There were already at least 2 books published..."
So you're saying that throughout the history of mankind there were ALWAYS people who thought that the earth revolved around the sun?!
"I talked about a jury for a very simple reason. In a trial, other than the defendant, EVERY other party is part of the government..."
Strange, I deal with CIVIL lawsuits everyday and I never see the government involved at all. In addition to the "Defendant" there is also this entity called the "Plaintiff" which brings lawsuits.
"That is absolutely untrue. Publishing lies would break many laws, which woulh have you arrested by government police, held in a government prison, prosecuted by a government district attorney, mediated by a government judge, etc."
Name ONE criminal law.
"Only lying in a political ad."
So you admit, that you want to live in a country where people can be jailed for making political statements which were mandated by the government as untrue. Now that we've got our positions correct, It's quite easy to see who the troll really is.
Name one thing you've disproved?! You asked a simple question and I answered it. The US constitution says what it says. You may disagree with it, but the best you can do is to work and change it.
I wrote the virus which made the whole world cringe.
I wrote the virus which screwed up things
I wrote the virus that made system administrators cry
I wrote the virus, I wrote the virus
Considering I could build at least two extremely high-end PC systems for the cost of one moderatly high-end Mac, the answer would have to be "no."
"Usually a judge or jury."
We already have this system in place. How is your different? If someone is lying a person could civily sue to enjoin them from continuing to make the statements.
"No, it was entirely an assumption."
At the time NO one believed it was an "entirely an assumption."
"Yes, we are."
If someone tells a lie against you, you could sue for dafamation, false light, and to enjoin the statements from being made.
"And government employees are never on juries?"
Gee, I'm begining to think you're a moron. Merely because government employees are on a jury DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS BRINGING THE LAWSUIT!!!!
"You should try that out on the witness stand and see how that holds up."
Perjury is different, and you (should) know it. What I mean is that I can write a book filled will lies about Kerry or Bush and the government could NEVER stop me. Never. Kerry or Bush might sue me, but the government would be powerless.
If you want to change the Constitution to include the following: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the government decides that certain speech is untrue, in which case the government can come down on their asses like a ton of bricks."
Amending the Constitution is the ONLY means you have to carry out your goal. If that's your choice, you'd better get busy.
BTW, you never explained how you'd get people to stop lying. If you're only talking about monetary damages, that would not shut people up. They'd just hide their money. The only way your system would work if violators of "the truth" were jailed. And I'll ask again, is that the country you want to live in?
"Either what you are saying is true, or it is not."
But who decides?!
"saying so isn't going to get you arrested by any means."
Then how are you going to enforce your desire to stop people lying in politcal ads?!
"blatantly clear cases."
At one time it was "blatantly clear" that the sun revolved around the earth.
"they need to be held accountable."
But not through jail time, just a slap on the wrist?!
"The current liability-free bullshit system cannot possibly continue."
We are not currently in a "liability-free" system. We still have civil causes of action such as defamation, false light, etc. These are not decided by the government, but by the people acting as jurors.
Excluding commerical speech, in the US we have the right to free speech and that INCLUDES lying. We might be sued in civil court, but the government cannot stop it.
And I don't want the government sorting it out. Here's a good example: Were you with either Kerry or Bush the entire time they served or allegedly served their country in the military? If you weren't, you don't know first hand what happened. You'd want a commision to get together and determine what happened then have it mandate the "truth." If anyone was caught violating the "truth", i.e., expresing an opinion different from the "truth" they'd be arrested.
Do you really want that world?
I'm not sure how the size of the file is relevant. One file is still one song which means it's one copyright violation.
That's interesting, but I'm more curious about the RIAA. Thanks.
All the RIAA would have to do is set up its own SuprNova.org styled website and then start tracking IP addresses.
You're right about off-line sharing, though. Portable hard drives are getting cheap and flash drives are getting larger.