Yeah, but this is part of the problem. It's not about who has the fastest chip, but who has the best package (chipset, price, etc.) overall.
If I want PCIe and PCIx (or any combination in-between), SMP or single, 64- bit extensions or not; I have SEVERAL different options with Intel. With AMD, none, nada, zip.
And looking at the new chipsets that are supposed to be coming out for the Opteron/Athlon, that situation isn't going to change for a while (the new nForce doesn't even support PCIx).
Add to that the glut of Intel chips (and most likely the price reductions to follow); well the Nocona is looking pretty tasty right now (and about $200 less than an Opteron per pricewatch).
The lack of range for quality boards is hurting AMD. If you had no alliance to either chipmaker, would you choose some promise for next quarter or something that is functional and cheaper right now?
No real point in responding to an AC, but quickly:
By maintaining a residence or PO Box a recipent pays the cost for recieving bulk mail.
"Or current resident of" is actually because it is illegal to deliver mail to any person not named on a PO box. This is a legal loophole (as well as the fact you can decline any mail except for, you guessed it, bulk mail).
Can you cite which existing laws worldwide as they apply to spam?
You are also responsible for your own choices. Can you just delete the spam and be done?
I note that mail fraud still exist. The analogy still holds. Your point?
For the most part, I agree with you whole-heartedly, and, unfortunately, the parts I disagree with put me in a most unenviable position: defending spammers.
And there is a cadre on/. that thinks boiling them in lead is a good start before things start really getting rough, I don't expect my position to garner much support, however, your argument is flawed.
When you speak of property rights in regards to spam, you are extending your rights to include what can be done with the entirety of the internet. You are, in essence trespassing against someone else's use. For example, I'm certain you get advertisements daily through your snailmail. What is the difference between that and a spam for viagra? Both are unasked for, both can be seen as a public nuisance, except when attempting to press charges of trespassing against Safeway for a bulk advertisement; you would be laughed out of court. You do not get to define the operation of the entire postal service just because you have an address.
And claiming to know what the specific intent of a spammer who writes "\/1aGr/\" is a bit much. The same could be said of a mailing label that contains "or current resident of". Is it not an attempt to evade a filter? Call the Calvary; Valu-pak has just invaded my home.
And comparing the acts of the Unabomber with "PENIS GROWTH GUARENTEED" is just laughable. I got a catalogue to Victoria Secret the other day. Is it pornographic material being sent through the mail, or is it just an advertisement. Should I sue? I certainly don't want my kids to see women portrayed in such a derogatory manner. Perhaps next time I will just throw the catalogue away.
And any other argument you make for criminal intent of email can just as easily be applied to snailmail, with one primary difference: we take away a persons ability to send mail after they have been convicted of a crime. If all of these property laws apply to email, why do we make an exception in this circumstance?
And beyond the problems of trying to enforce US law on a spammer that may reside outside of US jurisdiction, it comes down to this: I want the right to email Tyan to ask about IRQ settings without having their expressed permission. I want enough leeway to dial a wrong number without the receiver crying foul. I want the right to receive an email for a product or service I might find useful, or to be notified of a problem with a product I have already purchased. The idea of asking permission first is a catch-22 if I have no means to contact you in the first place.
And ultimately pandering to the idea of some nebulous common public good brings the entire level of discourse to the lowest of common denominators. The issues aren't black and white, and viewing them as such distracts from pursuing answers which are more viable in the long term.
If a facility wishes to put up a jammer, fine. Their choice (and they really shouldn't have to ask permission by law) as well as asking the person to leave.
The point is that while trying to combat the inconsiderateness of others, the theatre is also being inconsiderate. A responsible party, when recieving a call, would excuse themselves. Those people now do not have the option to be connected at the hip by the actions of a few bad players. Couldn't an usher ask an obnoxious party to tone it down or leave instead of installing a jammer? Which is a more reasonable response?
Mostly I object to technology that forces you to be a good citizen. And after reading several of the justifications posted, the degree in which others took their right to be undisturbed during a show struck me as incredibly melodramatic (others paid their ticket price as well, sorry).
There are other issues at hand. Can I demand an absence of disturbances while going to see Rocky Horror? Can I bring in my laptop and write notes if I'm doing a review? Can I dress as Chewbacca during a Star Wars premire? I'm certain any of these actions would irritate someone else (and as you mention lawsuit; the potential for lawsuits with installing a jammer is enormous). It just strikes me as mutually intolerant, and attempting to make a law for a circumstance that would eventually die out anyways.
It wasn't too long ago that we all got by just fine as a society and individuals without the convenience of antibiotics, automobiles, and computers. Your point?
The point is a cellphone could be used as such. It's a tool, nothing more.
I myself don't own a cell phone. Think the devises are evil. But I'm perfectly aware that several people do own cellphones, and may have reasons to want to be connected at the hip 24/7. It's their choice. They certainly don't have to justify it to me.
And on the topic of melodrama, which is more melodramatic- someone being obnoxious with a cell or have to legislate someone being obnoxious with a cell?
Pray to god your nose-picking behavior doesn't come up for review.
Oh dear, someone has interrupted my right to an undisturbed performance.
Shall we kill the next person who coughs or has to use the bathroom?
It might be wise to consider how any new technology disrupts the social fabric, and it takes a little time to adjust.
Or that maybe other people are just as self-absorbed/rude as you are.
But fair is fair. If they are bugging you with their cells, why not harass them back by jamming their calls? Hell, legislate it to make it seem more credible. And the chants of "But that's illegal!" that are soon to follow.
I mean the fact their kid has just been involved in a 7 car pile up and a mother is seeking confirmation on their kid's medical history/medical release is so benign compared to my perfect evening.
What even bother having a cell at all?
*laments when smoking and public tolerance/responsibility were ushered out of the public space*
Keep in mind S. Korea is a relatively new democracy. I can point out Kwangju Diary as a flashpoint in its evolution, and you can see how things have pretty much progressed from there.
What does this have to do with music retailers dying out?
Well, look at the S Korean release of The Cult's "Love", and you'll note the song "Revolution" is missing. It was banned by the government. However, the song is freely available online.
As well as a bunch of other songs, news, and info. You can't keep people in the dark if they don't want to be. If you want that song, what is your source? Congratulations, you just broke the copyright by working your way around an artificial control. The situation with the RIAA/copyright isn't much different.
Putting aside the whole copyright issue, it becomes a simple case of supply and demand. You have an infinite supply on P2P networks, and a worldwide demand of internet users. How is this so fucking hard to understand? You either integrate with the standing technology or you die. You can't stand on your molehill and demand all the technology be revised to suit your specific demands (well, unless you got one damn good lobbying group).
Put the onus on the content providers. Let them come up with their uncrackable format. Let them come up with their proprietary players. Hell, let them come up with there own internet. See how long they last. You want music on the web? You want music in a digital format? Well, you're gonna have to compromise.
Just don't expect everyone else to be stupid enough to buy in to your outrage over file sharing compared to their outrage of paying $18 a pop.
And try getting a copy of Ratticus past US customs.
Information does indeed want to be free.
"the top 20% of all taxpayers shoulder 82%~ of the tax burden"
I've seen this statistic quoted several times and it's a trope. Without knowing the actual numbers involved (income, tax rate, and population), it's just someone mouthing off another inconsequential statistic.
Suppose I make $9.2 million (average CEO salary for 2003) and I am taxed at 5%. My tax burden is $460,000.
Suppose I made $27.6 million (still well below what some CEOs have been paid) and I am taxed at 5%, my tax burden is $1,382,760.
Median income in 2003 was $43,318. If I am taxed at 70%, my tax burden is $30,322.
Poverty level for a family of four was $18,400. Also taxed at 70% is $12,880.
Total revenue collected: $1,885,962.
So even if the the bottom half of the economic spectrum is taxed at rate 13 times more than the very top half. The top 25% shoulders over 73% of the tax burden
Does this denote the very rich are being taxed unfairly, or does it denote that the gap between the very richest and the very poorest is astronomical. You do the math.
Sources report that an early copy of GTA Vice City was found in Haiti by US troops, confirming what many US Haitian groups have asserted: that Rockstar Games is undoubtedly responsible for the outbreak of violence there. Initially, the Haitian Centers Council decried the media depictions of the civil war, stating "it makes all Haitians seem barbarous thugs", but the recent discovery of the early copy of the Rockstar game has energized the Haitian community to "seek out and destroy all older editions of GTA VC before the madness spreads". It is rumored Canada was planning a frontal assault on the beleaguered island nation by nature of Candia's mere proxy to the USA.
Meanwhile, US Haitian groups have threatened to sue the US Army for their video game "America's Army" if a single Haitian casualty is caused by US troops. Meanwhile, the mass slaughter of their former countrymen in Haiti continues.
In a related story, relatives of members of the Jonestown massacre have filed a lawsuit against God. The lawsuit alleges that the results of Christianity were to blame for the mass suicide. Christian groups in the US have been quoted as saying: "This is an outrage! This (holds up Bible) is the word of God, not some video game...".
Senator Joseph Lieberman has expressed "concerns" over Christianity's role in the mass suicide, and has suggested a ratings system similar to movie ratings for each book of the Bible, with fines and possible prison sentences if anyone makes the restricted sections available to minors. Some Christian groups have called for armed prayer vigils to quote "save the soul of this country and the Senator".
As a previous/.er pointed out, you just can't place the entire mess at lawyer's feet. They are working within the system, and the system is at least serviceable (the system has been the same since before this push towards frivolous lawsuits. It is just a matter of who is using the tool). One of the nice things about common law.
Two things that have changed: insurance companies and stupid jurors.
In a sense, the MDs are just exercising the same privilege that insurance companies have been (denying coverage based upon history), and a good portion of the lawsuit frenzy starts with insurance companies attempting to recoup cost (I am quick to point out most insurance companies make money hand over fist regardless of economic conditions. Part of the culture of fear).
And even then, the entire thing might have been stopped if it weren't for indulgent juror awards. The lawyers don't make the decisions in this respect, juries do. Blame them.
Doctors would do well to demand disclosure from boards just to weed out the poor doctors. Patients would do well to demand full disclosure from MDs (and in a sense we still have this through word of mouth), and both would do well to demand full disclosure from insurance companies. Insurance was meant to pay costs, not set policy. An informed decision helps everybody.
Can't say how to make smarter juries except for have you hugged a geek/nerd today:)
As S. King pointed out, you have to feed the alligators of the sub-conscious. A polite society doesn't allow for poetic justice; it doesn't give you a space to let your id to roam free. The entire horror genre is dedicated to this idea.
Look at any moralistically repressive system, and you see the worst crimes imaginable being perpetrated. There is no escape valve. What do you expect?
The classics of horror were written during the most repressed times, and hardly ever do you see horror expanding during times of war. Why bother when people are already acting out in real life?
And as it is for games. The mere fact people are acting in an anti-social fashion suggests a need. You _could_ play nice, but people choose not to. Isn't playing PARANOIA still a social event?
Casual evidence suggests this is a step away from criminal. Kick in the doors to people's minds, and they tend to kick back. And it isn't pretty.
"There is little in the way of 'female dominated competition'..."
So then you are familiar with the men who tried out for the LPGA and WNBA?
"It is an uncommon one for most men..."
I've found adversity is common to almost everyone. I've also found it common to demonstrate competency and that standard is set higher if you are the odd man out [ha, something we agree on;) ]. That is regardless of gender. Welcome to the trials and tribulations of being a trailblazer (and for women, the trailblazing is more apparent).
"If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it."
And this line of reasoning can justify any type of sexism, for keeping women out of combat roles in the military to keeping women out of top positions in businesses as they are less competitive. A good deal of sexism seems to parade itself disguised as practicality. I disregard it. You knew the mission was dangerous, quit bitching about it now.
"Note that this was addressed to..."
Someone called you honey and stated that women might exploit men's sexuality comes to:
"You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain."
Uh-huh. Ouch. "It seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally."
And we could converse about the whole "sex objects" idea, but that won't be resolved today. The connotation immediately puts male sexuality as suspect and degrading; you have just objectified males as satyrs.
"What I might say?" That when it is pointed out (although I will be the first to admit the AC could have used more decorum) that women might exploit the novelty of being a girl in a male group, perhaps there are dynamics for the males as well? Mutual abuse.
I thought I pointed out how both men and women succeed in similar scenarios, and there are just as many assumptions for both parties. We could just as easily be discussing males playing Dance Dance Revolution, and the issues would be the same. Perhaps you are just as patronizing as the original poster, just in a different context. Perhaps I pointed out the hypocrisy inherent.
"Perhaps you do have a few assumptions to realign."
I am curious to hear your views concerning the dynamics of men entering female dominated competition. Unfortunately, that doesn't even merit consideration in the popular consciousness. Speaking as male in a female dominated profession, I can assure you no special allowances are given to me, and I had to endure the slings and arrows before I was respected for my abilities.
If anything, I resent any insinuations of what my capabilities should be. I shouldn't be expected to do all the heavy lifting (as my female compatriots were prone to do), nor should I be seen as incapable of delicacy. But that is a common experience. That changes with demonstration. We are paid the same, do your job to the best of your abilities.
I am of an ethnic minority, and I resent any implication that I can't compete. I also resent you tarnishing any of the achievements women have made. Diane Nyad, Curie, Lynn St. James, Michelle Wie, etc.; they did better than compete, they set new standards. No "demographic" can take that away from them.
When my black friends call me an honorary nigga for all the struggles overcome, I'm guessing I might know something about disadvantage. It's meaningless; you will either respect me or not. That changes nothing that I do.
My mother has accomplished much with limited prospects, especially in a time when it was unfashionable for women to do so. When I make mention that she might be an unsung revolutionary, she laughs. The first person to underestimate her is making a fatal mistake. She resents any implication that she needs accomodation. As she is fond of saying: "You were born here, you speak the language, you know the culture. What is your problem?"
"The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy..." Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Maybe it would be better to know less about disadvantage and more about valor.
In you are going to compete, compete. Arbitrary rules only foster the idea of inability. Girls still seem to accomplish beyond what you might say.
I think the problem people have is the gov. acting like a sleaze and trying to hide what its up to. Considering this is about information gathering, the irony would be delirious if it wasn't so black.
I mean christ man, _Brazil_ was suppose to be satire. It is revolting to see your own gov. acting in a way that mimics a gallows worst-case scenario.
And, yes, the chant of "national security" seems to be a teflon plate against any betrayal of trust. No discussion as to what degree the population will allow this intrusion, no vote as to what oversights will be implemented to avoid abuse; no, they hide under secrecy like common criminals. And you would dare ask that I should trust them? Are you insane?
When the gov. refuses to obey its own laws, it is a tyranny. Even when they say they have your best interests at heart, even when the horde is at the gate: tyranny.
And with every abrogation of law, the gov. justifies every evil thought I have against them. What does it matter if the country is safe when the gov. has the moral insolvency and the same respect for law as any common terrorist? At least the terrorists are more honest in their intentions.
Initially neither party opposed the Iraq War. Neither side has even come close to addressing root concerns with the healthcare system, and neither have been particularly adroit with environmental concerns. It almost sounds as if you are making an argument for supporting the Green party.
I see a great deal of posturing from each party, and not much of substance. People will continue to die and complex problems will be dumbed down into an ineffectual for/against mentality long after the final votes have been tallied. That is the heart of the problem. If I fail to vote, I will have a very limited effect, true. But by voting, I am complicit in maintaining a system that allowed all these injustices possible in the first place.
Quite honestly, you and I both know the game is rigged. Does in seem logical to play a fixed game?
The less people vote, the less credibility the current parties have. In the former Soviet Union, they had near 100% turn-out for elections. How did voting change much of anything there?
Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?
I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.
It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political favors will be returned this time. It has nothing to do with me.
The thing is, it isn't a free country when I'm forced into voting for vanilla over chocolate or not having any ice scream at all. What about mocha-ripple? What about daiquiri ice? And in this grand wide world of incompatible views, it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views except for those who support a two party system and those who do not. And those who don't are very much the majority. In that respect, hoping the challenger won't wear the super-sized strap-on that the incumbent does isn't "the ability to make a tough decision"; it's political suicide.
Truth is both parties would be terribly afraid of a "none of the above" option. It would call bullshit on the entire operation, and then those bribes aren't quite as effective anymore.
Your vote vs. billions of dollars and the media framing all of the issues for you. Either way, you lose.
Do you think the rank-and-file have a clue as to whom they are voting for? Do ya think they need a last minute reminder as to how the hell they registered to vote?
And if every last one of those rank-and-file decided to forward said email to their friends, who then forward to their friends...
Could be a nice collusion with spamming for a better campaign, and the candidates look clean.
Yeah, I agree. The suspention of disbelief in the Hulk was way over-done. I mean Jennifer (oh please be still my beating heart) Connolly playing a geek girl AND having a thing for the detached type. WTF? Even the gamma radiation to mass transferance was more believable. I seem to remember rumors that Bill Bixby was gay... Seems spot on.
Wow! I can start to see the boomer generation being warehoused in India instead of the nursing homes in the US. Then you will need all the support services (drugs, McDonalds, CostCo, Bruce Springsteen, etc.) shipped out there as well.
We can have an absentee country! Much better than the Paved Earth idea (everyone gets issued a RV and we all live in the parkinglots of Wallmart). The more I think about it, anything can be shipped overseas, even shipping.
I look forward to the future.
And all the politicans who created this mess being left behind (well, I guess prostitution won't be outsourced after all).
When you make mention of researching cars for 150 years, you aren't speaking exclusively about chip modding production engines... not all cars run well upon delivery despite the 150 years of research.
Laptops running engine management functions in racing would disagree with you. Why bother with all the analysis and sensors unless they were getting something from it? Different settings are punched in dependant on conditions, and all these things factor in to the production setting. Not to mention other modifications you make to the auto might necessitate getting a new chip.
But I am speaking of modifying a car. CPU change; this _shouldn't_ be that big of a deal. It is a question of degrees. If I put higher-grade rubber on or new wheels, should that by necessity violate the warranty? In most instances no. Chopping the springs, etc. and it is a different ballgame. Flat out denying any modifications to the car with respect to the warranty is a bit much and that seems to be what the car companies are pushing for. The CPU is reasonably grey. I think it should be case by case unless you want to start enforcing EULAs for cars. I imagine it will get to a point where chip mods will be warrantied by their respective manufacturers, or basic word of mouth as to which ones work.
I'm happy you haven't turned to the darkside. The balance of good and evil would be too greatly effected. The misery great;)
The Saleen is an example of a good thing in comparison with a stock Mustang (and the requisite 150 years of research) performance wise. I couldn't picture modding to decrease performance. Partial to Lotus myself.
Actually, there is tons of research to be gained. Look at nearly any car company that actively engages in racing. Some are there for the glory, but most are there as a test bed for research. A good portion of parts do not come from a single manufacturer alone. Would it be more effective to design your own turbocharger or get one from Garrett since that is pretty much all they do? Fitting the turbocharger (or CPU) into the whole of the car is where the problem arises: yeah you increased HP by 300, but can the tranny take it? So now you have _customization_ (and really, that is all we are talking about) shops to balance it all out.
And more I see this as marketing game: it's okay to by STI parts to make my mods, but all others be damned. Two sides to it, but you get the idea.
Your computer ran fine as delivered as well. Have you modify it at all? Well, shame on you.
The companies that make the mod chips are relatively young, and they don't understand the technologies. This will hopefully change in time. Besides, don't you want a force for universal good to counter-act the bean counters? Aren't Saleen Mustangs a Good Thing?
"It's kind of sad that people don't want this kind of interaction anymore."
Actually, people do.
Most of the big box retailers are spread too thin as far as selection goes, and pop doesn't account for the entirety of the market.
Most shops I go to usually specialize in a particular genre of music that isn't mainstream or obscure recordings (or vinyl for that matter). It's fringe, but one area where Best Buy can't compete. It also makes for a devoted customer base.
And, as you pointed out, those shops act as a pretty good filtering mechanism. Radio fails in this respect and one of the difficulties of online music is the sheer amount; and the majority is substandard. The record shops are pretty good at gauging the pulse of their market. Even the recommendations from Amazon pale in comparison to a knowledgeable staff.
And when the population is sick of the single, where do they go then? The extreme focus on the single (iTunes) makes a niche market for music stores by default. Whether it is profitable enough to be self-sustaining is the question, but I don't notice video games stores planning for obsolescence even though they have many of the same problems.
The big question is margin. Cds usually run for around $18. Even with the added value a record store gives, it's hard to justify when I can by the exact same item for $10 online. Eight bucks doesn't seem like much, but multiply that by the 700 or so CDs I own. If I walk out of a store with only one CD, you haven't done your job as far as making recommendations;) Spreading the margins over several CDs makes more sense.
One thing I've noticed is a few record shops offering single pricing ($12 and $18) on their entire stock. Again, the margins are spread out, and I usually end up buying more.
I don't see the end of the independent record shops, but it will certainly be less profitable than it has been. People still want to be introduced to new music, people still like the physical document. With radio gone to hell, and everyone scavenging for the latest hype, I see lots of opportunities for record stores willing to play to their strengths.
And when you point your camera back at the surveillance cameras, what happens then?
Bring enough money for bail.
And why do only the commons need protection? Certain the President needs constant surveillance and a nation of witnesses? And certainly those who favor surveillance wouldn't mind their own specific cameras to keep them safe, and allow those of us who can take care of ourselves a little privacy?
The hypocrisy of the arguments for surveillance is a little short of disgusting when my own government keeps secrets from me.
Question: When the Smashing Pumpkins gave away their final album (against their record company's wishes), was this in the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?
When another band I am fond of released a "bootleg" copy of an album that had gone out of print, was this in the spirit of the law or letter of the law?
While most argue about the ability to profit from a piece of work, one aspect is overlooked: control.
The other side of the coin is a manufacture who refuses to purchase rights from an individual, waits until the patient expires, and then proceeds to use said idea in their product (the case I'm thinking of dealt with sweeteners, but the details escape me now). The problem is the manufacturer would not have even known about sweetener without the patient. Why bother with a patent at all?
It is to give the creator a reason to present the idea. Imagine I had created a cure for cancer and left it to rot on some dusty shelf. What good is a patent now?
In the case with the Smashing Pumpkins and the other band, that is precisely what the copyright law has done; allowed the works to rot. By pushing the pragmatic aspect of the copyright, they have actually moved closer to the spirit of the law; they have maintained control of their work. The German band is no different.
Stricter interpretations will only incite more flagrant violations: the more laws you have, the more criminals you have. The more egregious the law, the more egregious the crime. The current trespasses on copyrights should perhaps serve as a warning that the current laws are inappropriate instead of a reason to pass even stricter laws.
More importantly, the creation of new works. It is hard to understand how stricter controls will somehow lead to a greater dissemination of an idea. The logical extrapolation is no access to any ideas. This is a dangerous precedent.
The freedom I enjoy was actually conceptualized by the philosophers. If it were earned by anyone, it would be Voltaire.
The military is most definitely a significant tool, but without any ideas to direct it... well, look at China.
So quit pulling my strings about some mythos of the military. It is a poor justification for the monies spent, and even worse in how it serves the population at large (as if no technology is developed outside military applications).
Without the philosophers, you don't even have the concepts like "freedom" to fight for.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but this is part of the problem. It's not about who has the fastest chip, but who has the best package (chipset, price, etc.) overall.
If I want PCIe and PCIx (or any combination in-between), SMP or single, 64- bit extensions or not; I have SEVERAL different options with Intel. With AMD, none, nada, zip.
And looking at the new chipsets that are supposed to be coming out for the Opteron/Athlon, that situation isn't going to change for a while (the new nForce doesn't even support PCIx).
Add to that the glut of Intel chips (and most likely the price reductions to follow); well the Nocona is looking pretty tasty right now (and about $200 less than an Opteron per pricewatch).
The lack of range for quality boards is hurting AMD. If you had no alliance to either chipmaker, would you choose some promise for next quarter or something that is functional and cheaper right now?
No real point in responding to an AC, but quickly:
By maintaining a residence or PO Box a recipent pays the cost for recieving bulk mail.
"Or current resident of" is actually because it is illegal to deliver mail to any person not named on a PO box. This is a legal loophole (as well as the fact you can decline any mail except for, you guessed it, bulk mail).
Can you cite which existing laws worldwide as they apply to spam?
You are also responsible for your own choices. Can you just delete the spam and be done?
I note that mail fraud still exist. The analogy still holds. Your point?
For the most part, I agree with you whole-heartedly, and, unfortunately, the parts I disagree with put me in a most unenviable position: defending spammers.
And there is a cadre on/. that thinks boiling them in lead is a good start before things start really getting rough, I don't expect my position to garner much support, however, your argument is flawed.
When you speak of property rights in regards to spam, you are extending your rights to include what can be done with the entirety of the internet. You are, in essence trespassing against someone else's use. For example, I'm certain you get advertisements daily through your snailmail. What is the difference between that and a spam for viagra? Both are unasked for, both can be seen as a public nuisance, except when attempting to press charges of trespassing against Safeway for a bulk advertisement; you would be laughed out of court. You do not get to define the operation of the entire postal service just because you have an address.
And claiming to know what the specific intent of a spammer who writes "\/1aGr/\" is a bit much. The same could be said of a mailing label that contains "or current resident of". Is it not an attempt to evade a filter? Call the Calvary; Valu-pak has just invaded my home.
And comparing the acts of the Unabomber with "PENIS GROWTH GUARENTEED" is just laughable. I got a catalogue to Victoria Secret the other day. Is it pornographic material being sent through the mail, or is it just an advertisement. Should I sue? I certainly don't want my kids to see women portrayed in such a derogatory manner. Perhaps next time I will just throw the catalogue away.
And any other argument you make for criminal intent of email can just as easily be applied to snailmail, with one primary difference: we take away a persons ability to send mail after they have been convicted of a crime. If all of these property laws apply to email, why do we make an exception in this circumstance?
And beyond the problems of trying to enforce US law on a spammer that may reside outside of US jurisdiction, it comes down to this: I want the right to email Tyan to ask about IRQ settings without having their expressed permission. I want enough leeway to dial a wrong number without the receiver crying foul. I want the right to receive an email for a product or service I might find useful, or to be notified of a problem with a product I have already purchased. The idea of asking permission first is a catch-22 if I have no means to contact you in the first place.
And ultimately pandering to the idea of some nebulous common public good brings the entire level of discourse to the lowest of common denominators. The issues aren't black and white, and viewing them as such distracts from pursuing answers which are more viable in the long term.
Agreed. People should be more considerate.
If a facility wishes to put up a jammer, fine. Their choice (and they really shouldn't have to ask permission by law) as well as asking the person to leave.
The point is that while trying to combat the inconsiderateness of others, the theatre is also being inconsiderate. A responsible party, when recieving a call, would excuse themselves. Those people now do not have the option to be connected at the hip by the actions of a few bad players. Couldn't an usher ask an obnoxious party to tone it down or leave instead of installing a jammer? Which is a more reasonable response?
Mostly I object to technology that forces you to be a good citizen. And after reading several of the justifications posted, the degree in which others took their right to be undisturbed during a show struck me as incredibly melodramatic (others paid their ticket price as well, sorry).
There are other issues at hand. Can I demand an absence of disturbances while going to see Rocky Horror? Can I bring in my laptop and write notes if I'm doing a review? Can I dress as Chewbacca during a Star Wars premire? I'm certain any of these actions would irritate someone else (and as you mention lawsuit; the potential for lawsuits with installing a jammer is enormous). It just strikes me as mutually intolerant, and attempting to make a law for a circumstance that would eventually die out anyways.
It wasn't too long ago that we all got by just fine as a society and individuals without the convenience of antibiotics, automobiles, and computers. Your point? The point is a cellphone could be used as such. It's a tool, nothing more. I myself don't own a cell phone. Think the devises are evil. But I'm perfectly aware that several people do own cellphones, and may have reasons to want to be connected at the hip 24/7. It's their choice. They certainly don't have to justify it to me. And on the topic of melodrama, which is more melodramatic- someone being obnoxious with a cell or have to legislate someone being obnoxious with a cell? Pray to god your nose-picking behavior doesn't come up for review.
Oh dear, someone has interrupted my right to an undisturbed performance.
Shall we kill the next person who coughs or has to use the bathroom?
It might be wise to consider how any new technology disrupts the social fabric, and it takes a little time to adjust.
Or that maybe other people are just as self-absorbed/rude as you are.
But fair is fair. If they are bugging you with their cells, why not harass them back by jamming their calls? Hell, legislate it to make it seem more credible. And the chants of "But that's illegal!" that are soon to follow.
I mean the fact their kid has just been involved in a 7 car pile up and a mother is seeking confirmation on their kid's medical history/medical release is so benign compared to my perfect evening.
What even bother having a cell at all?
*laments when smoking and public tolerance/responsibility were ushered out of the public space*
Keep in mind S. Korea is a relatively new democracy. I can point out Kwangju Diary as a flashpoint in its evolution, and you can see how things have pretty much progressed from there. What does this have to do with music retailers dying out? Well, look at the S Korean release of The Cult's "Love", and you'll note the song "Revolution" is missing. It was banned by the government. However, the song is freely available online. As well as a bunch of other songs, news, and info. You can't keep people in the dark if they don't want to be. If you want that song, what is your source? Congratulations, you just broke the copyright by working your way around an artificial control. The situation with the RIAA/copyright isn't much different. Putting aside the whole copyright issue, it becomes a simple case of supply and demand. You have an infinite supply on P2P networks, and a worldwide demand of internet users. How is this so fucking hard to understand? You either integrate with the standing technology or you die. You can't stand on your molehill and demand all the technology be revised to suit your specific demands (well, unless you got one damn good lobbying group). Put the onus on the content providers. Let them come up with their uncrackable format. Let them come up with their proprietary players. Hell, let them come up with there own internet. See how long they last. You want music on the web? You want music in a digital format? Well, you're gonna have to compromise. Just don't expect everyone else to be stupid enough to buy in to your outrage over file sharing compared to their outrage of paying $18 a pop. And try getting a copy of Ratticus past US customs. Information does indeed want to be free.
"the top 20% of all taxpayers shoulder 82%~ of the tax burden"
I've seen this statistic quoted several times and it's a trope. Without knowing the actual numbers involved (income, tax rate, and population), it's just someone mouthing off another inconsequential statistic.
Suppose I make $9.2 million (average CEO salary for 2003) and I am taxed at 5%. My tax burden is $460,000.
Suppose I made $27.6 million (still well below what some CEOs have been paid) and I am taxed at 5%, my tax burden is $1,382,760.
Median income in 2003 was $43,318. If I am taxed at 70%, my tax burden is $30,322.
Poverty level for a family of four was $18,400. Also taxed at 70% is $12,880.
Total revenue collected: $1,885,962.
So even if the the bottom half of the economic spectrum is taxed at rate 13 times more than the very top half. The top 25% shoulders over 73% of the tax burden
Does this denote the very rich are being taxed unfairly, or does it denote that the gap between the very richest and the very poorest is astronomical. You do the math.
Sources report that an early copy of GTA Vice City was found in Haiti by US troops, confirming what many US Haitian groups have asserted: that Rockstar Games is undoubtedly responsible for the outbreak of violence there. Initially, the Haitian Centers Council decried the media depictions of the civil war, stating "it makes all Haitians seem barbarous thugs", but the recent discovery of the early copy of the Rockstar game has energized the Haitian community to "seek out and destroy all older editions of GTA VC before the madness spreads". It is rumored Canada was planning a frontal assault on the beleaguered island nation by nature of Candia's mere proxy to the USA.
Meanwhile, US Haitian groups have threatened to sue the US Army for their video game "America's Army" if a single Haitian casualty is caused by US troops. Meanwhile, the mass slaughter of their former countrymen in Haiti continues.
In a related story, relatives of members of the Jonestown massacre have filed a lawsuit against God. The lawsuit alleges that the results of Christianity were to blame for the mass suicide. Christian groups in the US have been quoted as saying: "This is an outrage! This (holds up Bible) is the word of God, not some video game...".
Senator Joseph Lieberman has expressed "concerns" over Christianity's role in the mass suicide, and has suggested a ratings system similar to movie ratings for each book of the Bible, with fines and possible prison sentences if anyone makes the restricted sections available to minors. Some Christian groups have called for armed prayer vigils to quote "save the soul of this country and the Senator".
God could not be reached for comment.
As a previous /.er pointed out, you just can't place the entire mess at lawyer's feet. They are working within the system, and the system is at least serviceable (the system has been the same since before this push towards frivolous lawsuits. It is just a matter of who is using the tool). One of the nice things about common law.
:)
Two things that have changed: insurance companies and stupid jurors.
In a sense, the MDs are just exercising the same privilege that insurance companies have been (denying coverage based upon history), and a good portion of the lawsuit frenzy starts with insurance companies attempting to recoup cost (I am quick to point out most insurance companies make money hand over fist regardless of economic conditions. Part of the culture of fear).
And even then, the entire thing might have been stopped if it weren't for indulgent juror awards. The lawyers don't make the decisions in this respect, juries do. Blame them.
Doctors would do well to demand disclosure from boards just to weed out the poor doctors. Patients would do well to demand full disclosure from MDs (and in a sense we still have this through word of mouth), and both would do well to demand full disclosure from insurance companies. Insurance was meant to pay costs, not set policy. An informed decision helps everybody.
Can't say how to make smarter juries except for have you hugged a geek/nerd today
As S. King pointed out, you have to feed the alligators of the sub-conscious. A polite society doesn't allow for poetic justice; it doesn't give you a space to let your id to roam free. The entire horror genre is dedicated to this idea.
Look at any moralistically repressive system, and you see the worst crimes imaginable being perpetrated. There is no escape valve. What do you expect?
The classics of horror were written during the most repressed times, and hardly ever do you see horror expanding during times of war. Why bother when people are already acting out in real life?
And as it is for games. The mere fact people are acting in an anti-social fashion suggests a need. You _could_ play nice, but people choose not to. Isn't playing PARANOIA still a social event?
Casual evidence suggests this is a step away from criminal. Kick in the doors to people's minds, and they tend to kick back. And it isn't pretty.
"There is little in the way of 'female dominated competition'..."
;) ]. That is regardless of gender. Welcome to the trials and tribulations of being a trailblazer (and for women, the trailblazing is more apparent).
;0)
So then you are familiar with the men who tried out for the LPGA and WNBA?
"It is an uncommon one for most men..."
I've found adversity is common to almost everyone. I've also found it common to demonstrate competency and that standard is set higher if you are the odd man out [ha, something we agree on
"If you are the best equipped, however, it is safer and more efficient for you to do most of it."
And this line of reasoning can justify any type of sexism, for keeping women out of combat roles in the military to keeping women out of top positions in businesses as they are less competitive. A good deal of sexism seems to parade itself disguised as practicality. I disregard it. You knew the mission was dangerous, quit bitching about it now.
"Note that this was addressed to..."
Someone called you honey and stated that women might exploit men's sexuality comes to:
"You know nothing about disadvantage. You don't know what the disadvantage is to being automatically seen as something less than you are, or have the choice of being mistaken for a different gender. The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy is one I'd give up any day to not have to prove I have a brain."
Uh-huh. Ouch. "It seems you took much that was said in response to that person's particular attitudes much too personally."
And we could converse about the whole "sex objects" idea, but that won't be resolved today. The connotation immediately puts male sexuality as suspect and degrading; you have just objectified males as satyrs.
"What I might say?" That when it is pointed out (although I will be the first to admit the AC could have used more decorum) that women might exploit the novelty of being a girl in a male group, perhaps there are dynamics for the males as well? Mutual abuse.
I thought I pointed out how both men and women succeed in similar scenarios, and there are just as many assumptions for both parties. We could just as easily be discussing males playing Dance Dance Revolution, and the issues would be the same. Perhaps you are just as patronizing as the original poster, just in a different context. Perhaps I pointed out the hypocrisy inherent.
"Perhaps you do have a few assumptions to realign."
Indeed, and you as well
I am curious to hear your views concerning the dynamics of men entering female dominated competition. Unfortunately, that doesn't even merit consideration in the popular consciousness. Speaking as male in a female dominated profession, I can assure you no special allowances are given to me, and I had to endure the slings and arrows before I was respected for my abilities.
If anything, I resent any insinuations of what my capabilities should be. I shouldn't be expected to do all the heavy lifting (as my female compatriots were prone to do), nor should I be seen as incapable of delicacy. But that is a common experience. That changes with demonstration. We are paid the same, do your job to the best of your abilities.
I am of an ethnic minority, and I resent any implication that I can't compete. I also resent you tarnishing any of the achievements women have made. Diane Nyad, Curie, Lynn St. James, Michelle Wie, etc.; they did better than compete, they set new standards. No "demographic" can take that away from them.
When my black friends call me an honorary nigga for all the struggles overcome, I'm guessing I might know something about disadvantage. It's meaningless; you will either respect me or not. That changes nothing that I do.
My mother has accomplished much with limited prospects, especially in a time when it was unfashionable for women to do so. When I make mention that she might be an unsung revolutionary, she laughs. The first person to underestimate her is making a fatal mistake. She resents any implication that she needs accomodation. As she is fond of saying: "You were born here, you speak the language, you know the culture. What is your problem?"
"The "advantage" of being seen as nothing more than a dickcozy..." Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Maybe it would be better to know less about disadvantage and more about valor.
In you are going to compete, compete. Arbitrary rules only foster the idea of inability. Girls still seem to accomplish beyond what you might say.
I think the problem people have is the gov. acting like a sleaze and trying to hide what its up to. Considering this is about information gathering, the irony would be delirious if it wasn't so black.
I mean christ man, _Brazil_ was suppose to be satire. It is revolting to see your own gov. acting in a way that mimics a gallows worst-case scenario.
And, yes, the chant of "national security" seems to be a teflon plate against any betrayal of trust. No discussion as to what degree the population will allow this intrusion, no vote as to what oversights will be implemented to avoid abuse; no, they hide under secrecy like common criminals. And you would dare ask that I should trust them? Are you insane?
When the gov. refuses to obey its own laws, it is a tyranny. Even when they say they have your best interests at heart, even when the horde is at the gate: tyranny.
And with every abrogation of law, the gov. justifies every evil thought I have against them. What does it matter if the country is safe when the gov. has the moral insolvency and the same respect for law as any common terrorist? At least the terrorists are more honest in their intentions.
As much as I respect your position sir; no.
Initially neither party opposed the Iraq War. Neither side has even come close to addressing root concerns with the healthcare system, and neither have been particularly adroit with environmental concerns. It almost sounds as if you are making an argument for supporting the Green party.
I see a great deal of posturing from each party, and not much of substance. People will continue to die and complex problems will be dumbed down into an ineffectual for/against mentality long after the final votes have been tallied. That is the heart of the problem. If I fail to vote, I will have a very limited effect, true. But by voting, I am complicit in maintaining a system that allowed all these injustices possible in the first place.
Quite honestly, you and I both know the game is rigged. Does in seem logical to play a fixed game?
The less people vote, the less credibility the current parties have. In the former Soviet Union, they had near 100% turn-out for elections. How did voting change much of anything there?
Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?
I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.
It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political favors will be returned this time. It has nothing to do with me.
The thing is, it isn't a free country when I'm forced into voting for vanilla over chocolate or not having any ice scream at all. What about mocha-ripple? What about daiquiri ice? And in this grand wide world of incompatible views, it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views except for those who support a two party system and those who do not. And those who don't are very much the majority. In that respect, hoping the challenger won't wear the super-sized strap-on that the incumbent does isn't "the ability to make a tough decision"; it's political suicide.
Truth is both parties would be terribly afraid of a "none of the above" option. It would call bullshit on the entire operation, and then those bribes aren't quite as effective anymore.
Your vote vs. billions of dollars and the media framing all of the issues for you. Either way, you lose.
Do you think the rank-and-file have a clue as to whom they are voting for? Do ya think they need a last minute reminder as to how the hell they registered to vote?
And if every last one of those rank-and-file decided to forward said email to their friends, who then forward to their friends...
Could be a nice collusion with spamming for a better campaign, and the candidates look clean.
The article didn't say that either.
Yeah, I agree. The suspention of disbelief in the Hulk was way over-done. I mean Jennifer (oh please be still my beating heart) Connolly playing a geek girl AND having a thing for the detached type. WTF? Even the gamma radiation to mass transferance was more believable. I seem to remember rumors that Bill Bixby was gay... Seems spot on.
Wow! I can start to see the boomer generation being warehoused in India instead of the nursing homes in the US. Then you will need all the support services (drugs, McDonalds, CostCo, Bruce Springsteen, etc.) shipped out there as well.
We can have an absentee country! Much better than the Paved Earth idea (everyone gets issued a RV and we all live in the parkinglots of Wallmart). The more I think about it, anything can be shipped overseas, even shipping.
I look forward to the future.
And all the politicans who created this mess being left behind (well, I guess prostitution won't be outsourced after all).
How do you say "Fuck me you big silly" in Hindi?
When you make mention of researching cars for 150 years, you aren't speaking exclusively about chip modding production engines... not all cars run well upon delivery despite the 150 years of research.
;)
Laptops running engine management functions in racing would disagree with you. Why bother with all the analysis and sensors unless they were getting something from it? Different settings are punched in dependant on conditions, and all these things factor in to the production setting. Not to mention other modifications you make to the auto might necessitate getting a new chip.
But I am speaking of modifying a car. CPU change; this _shouldn't_ be that big of a deal. It is a question of degrees. If I put higher-grade rubber on or new wheels, should that by necessity violate the warranty? In most instances no. Chopping the springs, etc. and it is a different ballgame. Flat out denying any modifications to the car with respect to the warranty is a bit much and that seems to be what the car companies are pushing for. The CPU is reasonably grey. I think it should be case by case unless you want to start enforcing EULAs for cars. I imagine it will get to a point where chip mods will be warrantied by their respective manufacturers, or basic word of mouth as to which ones work.
I'm happy you haven't turned to the darkside. The balance of good and evil would be too greatly effected. The misery great
The Saleen is an example of a good thing in comparison with a stock Mustang (and the requisite 150 years of research) performance wise. I couldn't picture modding to decrease performance. Partial to Lotus myself.
Actually, there is tons of research to be gained. Look at nearly any car company that actively engages in racing. Some are there for the glory, but most are there as a test bed for research. A good portion of parts do not come from a single manufacturer alone. Would it be more effective to design your own turbocharger or get one from Garrett since that is pretty much all they do? Fitting the turbocharger (or CPU) into the whole of the car is where the problem arises: yeah you increased HP by 300, but can the tranny take it? So now you have _customization_ (and really, that is all we are talking about) shops to balance it all out.
And more I see this as marketing game: it's okay to by STI parts to make my mods, but all others be damned. Two sides to it, but you get the idea.
Your computer ran fine as delivered as well. Have you modify it at all? Well, shame on you.
The companies that make the mod chips are relatively young, and they don't understand the technologies. This will hopefully change in time. Besides, don't you want a force for universal good to counter-act the bean counters? Aren't Saleen Mustangs a Good Thing?
"It's kind of sad that people don't want this kind of interaction anymore."
;) Spreading the margins over several CDs makes more sense.
Actually, people do.
Most of the big box retailers are spread too thin as far as selection goes, and pop doesn't account for the entirety of the market.
Most shops I go to usually specialize in a particular genre of music that isn't mainstream or obscure recordings (or vinyl for that matter). It's fringe, but one area where Best Buy can't compete. It also makes for a devoted customer base.
And, as you pointed out, those shops act as a pretty good filtering mechanism. Radio fails in this respect and one of the difficulties of online music is the sheer amount; and the majority is substandard. The record shops are pretty good at gauging the pulse of their market. Even the recommendations from Amazon pale in comparison to a knowledgeable staff.
And when the population is sick of the single, where do they go then? The extreme focus on the single (iTunes) makes a niche market for music stores by default. Whether it is profitable enough to be self-sustaining is the question, but I don't notice video games stores planning for obsolescence even though they have many of the same problems.
The big question is margin. Cds usually run for around $18. Even with the added value a record store gives, it's hard to justify when I can by the exact same item for $10 online. Eight bucks doesn't seem like much, but multiply that by the 700 or so CDs I own. If I walk out of a store with only one CD, you haven't done your job as far as making recommendations
One thing I've noticed is a few record shops offering single pricing ($12 and $18) on their entire stock. Again, the margins are spread out, and I usually end up buying more.
I don't see the end of the independent record shops, but it will certainly be less profitable than it has been. People still want to be introduced to new music, people still like the physical document. With radio gone to hell, and everyone scavenging for the latest hype, I see lots of opportunities for record stores willing to play to their strengths.
And when you point your camera back at the surveillance cameras, what happens then?
Bring enough money for bail.
And why do only the commons need protection? Certain the President needs constant surveillance and a nation of witnesses? And certainly those who favor surveillance wouldn't mind their own specific cameras to keep them safe, and allow those of us who can take care of ourselves a little privacy?
The hypocrisy of the arguments for surveillance is a little short of disgusting when my own government keeps secrets from me.
In short, fuck you.
Question: When the Smashing Pumpkins gave away their final album (against their record company's wishes), was this in the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?
When another band I am fond of released a "bootleg" copy of an album that had gone out of print, was this in the spirit of the law or letter of the law?
While most argue about the ability to profit from a piece of work, one aspect is overlooked: control.
The other side of the coin is a manufacture who refuses to purchase rights from an individual, waits until the patient expires, and then proceeds to use said idea in their product (the case I'm thinking of dealt with sweeteners, but the details escape me now). The problem is the manufacturer would not have even known about sweetener without the patient. Why bother with a patent at all?
It is to give the creator a reason to present the idea. Imagine I had created a cure for cancer and left it to rot on some dusty shelf. What good is a patent now?
In the case with the Smashing Pumpkins and the other band, that is precisely what the copyright law has done; allowed the works to rot. By pushing the pragmatic aspect of the copyright, they have actually moved closer to the spirit of the law; they have maintained control of their work. The German band is no different.
Stricter interpretations will only incite more flagrant violations: the more laws you have, the more criminals you have. The more egregious the law, the more egregious the crime. The current trespasses on copyrights should perhaps serve as a warning that the current laws are inappropriate instead of a reason to pass even stricter laws.
More importantly, the creation of new works. It is hard to understand how stricter controls will somehow lead to a greater dissemination of an idea. The logical extrapolation is no access to any ideas. This is a dangerous precedent.
The freedom I enjoy was actually conceptualized by the philosophers. If it were earned by anyone, it would be Voltaire.
The military is most definitely a significant tool, but without any ideas to direct it... well, look at China.
So quit pulling my strings about some mythos of the military. It is a poor justification for the monies spent, and even worse in how it serves the population at large (as if no technology is developed outside military applications).
Without the philosophers, you don't even have the concepts like "freedom" to fight for.