Fiber optic cabling should be cheap too. After all, it's just glass and plastic.
While I agree that the overhead in the music industry doesn't likely justify their current pricing, the argument to tie retail cost to delivery and raw content values is naive at best.
There's a lot of production effort that resulted in the original creation. Just because it can be reproduced for an insignificant amount after it's created does not mean the actual cost of creation is nearly zero. Additionally, any content creation is a gamble. The huge number of failures are subsidized by the much smaller number of successes.
There are two sides to every argument. That the content industries are predatory is not in dispute, but their position is no more or less extreme than the position that their content has a near-zero cost.
Courts of original jurisdiction are bound by the law. Appellate courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, are not bound by a law they have not previously addressed. On the contrary, the law within an appellate court's jurisdiction is bound by the decision of the court issuing it.
You see, these benefits of ending drug prohibition you cited are not seen as such by... [the rest]
I understand that quite well, and agree with your analysis. I'm well aware of the bigger picture, but like many things that are the reality of the world, I think the people who wish to continue the status quo should be convinced otherwise with the liberal application of pliers and a blowtorch.
They didn't switch to drugs until Prohibition II. While they still remained somewhat violent, it was nowhere near on the scale of the alcohol wars. When you go underground with white collar crime, the necessity for violence to protect your interests falls off dramatically.
That's the thing I don't get about people who say, essentially, that Prohibition didn't eliminate organized crime, so why end Prohibition II? It's not going to end organized crime, but it will end a lot of violence associated with the drug trade. It'll also end a lot of the traffic through US courts that tie lots of resources up unnecessarily. It'll end a lot of contention between the US and other countries. It'll reduce the need for new prisons and new prison staff. It'll reduce the burden on police force staffing. It'll reduce the amount of property stolen from citizens by police forces through civil asset forfeiture. The list goes on and on of the benefits. The marginal increase in publicly acknowledged drug use (which is not the same thing as an ACTUAL increase in total drug consumption) is a small price to pay for all the benefits.
No, they didn't. They eventually integrated into a hybrid of legitimate business and white collar crime, for the most part. That is, until Prohibition II made it profitable to be extraordinarily violent again.
From the point of Afghani law, I'm sure it was completely legal to do, assuming they were official Afghani agents. Just because something is legal within the framework of a given country does not mean it will not have consequences.
Applying the logic used by the US to other countries allows some pretty crappy things to be justified. I never said the actions by the US outside US borders was justifiable; I said it was legal. There's frequently an enormous difference between the two.
Actually, it would be completely legal to do so. Once you're on the non-US side of Customs, the Constitution no longer applies (at least according to the courts in the US).
"Oh, law enforcement would never do something like that!" *wink wink*
People who argue the above are morons, or are the same assholes who actually engage in the behavior that they are arguing doesn't happen. Any time I hear people defending an entity or group by saying "They'd never do that!" immediately loses any credibility they may have had previously.
Law enforcement officers are human, and humans frequently do shitty things to other humans. This is especially true if they believe they can get away with not being identified as the perpetrator, or believe they will otherwise be protected from the consequences of their actions. As a result, there are probably a greater percentage of crimes committed by law enforcement than just about any other group of people outside of organized crime.
Or be a member of a political group that is not mainstream. Or be someone with the same name as someone on a watch list somewhere. Or be someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or...
It's absolutely rational. Where else would you have a bunch of people who are well-versed in the fucked-up things you can do with automation and computerization?
They are tools. Nobody's railing against using them. They're railing against using them for certain, specific things. There is an enormous difference between the two.
A shining example of what he was talking about, right here. Thank you for stepping out of the crowd to highlight the point. Oh, sorry, you weren't willing to step out of the crowd by logging in.
Cute. Pedantic, but cute. And completely incorrect.
"Glass of water" != "empty [water] glass" much like a "glass of milk" is not referred to as a "milk glass" when empty. The "of xxx" part indicates it has some quantity of xxx physically present in it.
Yup, unfortunately in the world we live in it's inevitably implemented by the people with the most guns. It only works well on a small-scale voluntary level because it only takes a few bad actors to ruin. When it's enforced by people who don't want to participate, it's a race to the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
Was this actually meant to be a reply to my comment, or was it misplaced?
It doesn't seem to follow...
Fiber optic cabling should be cheap too. After all, it's just glass and plastic.
While I agree that the overhead in the music industry doesn't likely justify their current pricing, the argument to tie retail cost to delivery and raw content values is naive at best.
There's a lot of production effort that resulted in the original creation. Just because it can be reproduced for an insignificant amount after it's created does not mean the actual cost of creation is nearly zero. Additionally, any content creation is a gamble. The huge number of failures are subsidized by the much smaller number of successes.
There are two sides to every argument. That the content industries are predatory is not in dispute, but their position is no more or less extreme than the position that their content has a near-zero cost.
Courts of original jurisdiction are bound by the law. Appellate courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, are not bound by a law they have not previously addressed. On the contrary, the law within an appellate court's jurisdiction is bound by the decision of the court issuing it.
They also accept cases based on the process being in question, which is just as important (and sometimes more so) as nailing down questions of law.
I suggest you read up on common law. Judges most certainly do create law in legal systems that are based on the concept of common law.
The US is one such system.
You see, these benefits of ending drug prohibition you cited are not seen as such by ... [the rest]
I understand that quite well, and agree with your analysis. I'm well aware of the bigger picture, but like many things that are the reality of the world, I think the people who wish to continue the status quo should be convinced otherwise with the liberal application of pliers and a blowtorch.
Because that's worked out so well in every place it's ever been tried.
You are not a part of the solution; you are a part of the problem.
They didn't switch to drugs until Prohibition II. While they still remained somewhat violent, it was nowhere near on the scale of the alcohol wars. When you go underground with white collar crime, the necessity for violence to protect your interests falls off dramatically.
That's the thing I don't get about people who say, essentially, that Prohibition didn't eliminate organized crime, so why end Prohibition II? It's not going to end organized crime, but it will end a lot of violence associated with the drug trade. It'll also end a lot of the traffic through US courts that tie lots of resources up unnecessarily. It'll end a lot of contention between the US and other countries. It'll reduce the need for new prisons and new prison staff. It'll reduce the burden on police force staffing. It'll reduce the amount of property stolen from citizens by police forces through civil asset forfeiture. The list goes on and on of the benefits. The marginal increase in publicly acknowledged drug use (which is not the same thing as an ACTUAL increase in total drug consumption) is a small price to pay for all the benefits.
No, they didn't. They eventually integrated into a hybrid of legitimate business and white collar crime, for the most part. That is, until Prohibition II made it profitable to be extraordinarily violent again.
They need to do hard time 6 feet under.
From the point of Afghani law, I'm sure it was completely legal to do, assuming they were official Afghani agents. Just because something is legal within the framework of a given country does not mean it will not have consequences.
Applying the logic used by the US to other countries allows some pretty crappy things to be justified. I never said the actions by the US outside US borders was justifiable; I said it was legal. There's frequently an enormous difference between the two.
The tracker is indiscriminate in that it does not stop tracking if you are not on public property.
Actually, it would be completely legal to do so. Once you're on the non-US side of Customs, the Constitution no longer applies (at least according to the courts in the US).
"Oh, law enforcement would never do something like that!" *wink wink*
People who argue the above are morons, or are the same assholes who actually engage in the behavior that they are arguing doesn't happen. Any time I hear people defending an entity or group by saying "They'd never do that!" immediately loses any credibility they may have had previously.
Law enforcement officers are human, and humans frequently do shitty things to other humans. This is especially true if they believe they can get away with not being identified as the perpetrator, or believe they will otherwise be protected from the consequences of their actions. As a result, there are probably a greater percentage of crimes committed by law enforcement than just about any other group of people outside of organized crime.
Or be a member of a political group that is not mainstream. Or be someone with the same name as someone on a watch list somewhere. Or be someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or...
It's absolutely rational. Where else would you have a bunch of people who are well-versed in the fucked-up things you can do with automation and computerization?
They are tools. Nobody's railing against using them. They're railing against using them for certain, specific things. There is an enormous difference between the two.
And I wouldn't say people are stupid, per se, but rather gather their information from sound bites.
That method of getting information, by choice, is the very definition of stupidity.
A shining example of what he was talking about, right here. Thank you for stepping out of the crowd to highlight the point. Oh, sorry, you weren't willing to step out of the crowd by logging in.
At the end of the day, the people put in place to determine qualifications would be the ruling party.
Some forms of democracy are worse than others. There are many which are far superior to direct (aka Athenian) democracy.
No.
Cute. Pedantic, but cute. And completely incorrect.
"Glass of water" != "empty [water] glass" much like a "glass of milk" is not referred to as a "milk glass" when empty. The "of xxx" part indicates it has some quantity of xxx physically present in it.
Exactly. If a business needs them to be compliant, it's a question they are obligated to ask when signing up for the service.
Anyone who needs compliance with one of those standards should be asking, and if you don't ask you should assume they're not.
This isn't rocket science, it's common bloody sense. People who don't have it and then do stupid things as a result deserve exactly what they get.
Yup, unfortunately in the world we live in it's inevitably implemented by the people with the most guns. It only works well on a small-scale voluntary level because it only takes a few bad actors to ruin. When it's enforced by people who don't want to participate, it's a race to the bottom.
Federal law was recently changed. The only way you can overdraw your debit card is if you voluntarily and explicitly opt into the program.
That said, a credit union with a national shared network is still a better option. You get all of the benefits, plus non-predatory fees.