and replace robot with dog. What I found most interesting, however, is the difference between how the children interacted with 1) a more "robotic" control robot, 2) the "more human" robot when it ceases to act "more human". Sure a kid will nurture/care for a pet, but it is very different than how they treat a stuffed animal/toy.
I said I haven't "foe'd" people for heartlessness in the past, that I'm just going to do it going forward. So in posting a reply to you looking for clarification (with truly open eyes- trying to understand the issue better), I am "heartless"? I very much hope that I was simply misinterpreting your point here.
1. I'm not a PR person, I'm a lawyer.
2. I'm a simple man. I have no idea what either of these have to do with my post/concern.
3. The article is about the RIAA's standard complaint -- which it has used in 30,000 cases, mostly uncontested -- being insufficient.
4. Ms. Schwartz's MS is not relevant to that issue, so it is in my view "offtopic".
5. Ms. Schwartz's MS is relevant to the brutality and immorality and moral impoverishment of the freaks and ghouls pursuing her with their frivolous litigation, which is likewise "offtopic". So the article is about the illegitimacy of the RIAA standard complaint. That is wonderful, and I agree 100%. And you view the MS issue to not be on the topic of the article. Then why devote 20% (1 of 5 sentences) in your summary to the fact that she has MS? You may think I am heartless for questioning this, but I am not intending to be.
I may simply be misunderstanding your points, but I am truly one of the American public who is concerned about this mockery of the law by the RIAA, and am just trying to understand, from a "lets get this problem fixed" standpoint, what the most important pieces are (you are a lawyer, I am not. To me, the law seems VERY confusing, and seems to allow people to do many, many heartless, terrible things. Thus, from my small exposure, focusing on those allowed heartless, terrible things, doesnt seem to solve the problem).
There are a lot of people out there who do and say VERY heartless things, but they are within the law to do them. But if they are doing something illegal while doing those heartless things, it seems to me that we should focus on the illegality of it, which stops them from 1) doing the illegal bit, 2) doing the heartless bit. If we focus on the heartless (but seemingly legal) piece, we get nowhere. Again, I realize I may be 100% wrong here, and would like to know if I am.
Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope I am not "foe'd" yet, so I can clarify what I was trying to say.
The fact that there are people with MS, old ladies, those who have never even had an internet connection, being sued by the RIAA is terrible. And if they are truly targeting those kind of people, they are the most despicable of the despicable.
My only concern is that when an emotional plea is sent out in a description of a court case, the public changes their focus from "The RIAA is making a mockery of our justice system" to "The RIAA is attacking people with horrible diseases." I may be wrong about this, but in this country, you are free to sue anyone, regardless of their status, health, etc. What you are NOT (supposed) to be allowed to do is bring the kind of litigation against ANYONE without proof or grounds as the RIAA is doing. Now I may be 100% off on these thoughts (as I am not a lawyer, dont play one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but it seems to me that to put the focus on the illegality of what the RIAA is doing, rather than the emotional side, may cause more sweeping changes.
All of that being said, I am not a lawyer, and would like to hear more of the other side of the coin (that is unless I have been foe'd and you never read this;) ).
I realize that MS is a horrible disease, and would never wish it on anyone. That being said, 1) having a disease does not give you a free card to do anything you want. 2) It doesn't make what the RIAA is doing to other folks any easier.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that no one, regardless of disease, race, creed, whatever, should be subjected to this kind of distortion of the law by the RIAA. Using lines like "even though she has MS, the RIAA presses on" in my mind implies that the RIAA should not be going after her, simply because her disease. Well, what if she had CF? AIDS? Stage 4 Cancer? And how about those who aren't suffering from disease? Are they somehow more deserving of these kinds of false litigation because they dont have MS?
IMHO, what the RIAA is doing is horrible, regardless of other circumstances in a person's life. By putting the focus on those other circumstances, you are distorting the issue, and are simply making exceptions to the rule, rather than fixing the whole thing. I would much rather see the outcome be "Improper litigation without proof by the RIAA is stopped," rather than "Improper litigation without proof by the RIAA is stopped against those with MS."
To be completely honest, that was not my intent in any way. I completely understand the points that the OP is trying to make. The problem comes in where cable co's have complete monopolies in many areas (take my area- very wooded, tall trees so few can get satellite, only one option for cable TV. What does it cost? $75.00 for the basic analog channels the last time I checked). This particular cable company has actively prevented other cable cos from coming in, and those who want cable, pay the price (the price I pay is not having cable.. I wish more around here would do the same, but they go along with it).
Then the OP makes the point that proper and innovative laws are what will protect the consumer. Well, when was the last time you saw a proper or innovative law that would regulate a large corporation come into play? As I see it, the problem is 3-fold: in many areas cable companies have monopolies, and thus typical economics don't come into play. Second, as with any big industry, lobbying has gotten out of control, and the government has gotten to the point that it is acting as an agent of industry. Finally, many industries (including the cable companies) cling to old business models, that many consumers are starting to realize, aren't very consumer friendly. Due to problem 1, when it comes to cable co's there in some areas, there is no competition to cause change.
And I truly do apologize for the hubris and adolescence in my replies. I guess being in an area (which may be unique) with a cable situation that is very anti-consumer, and has been in place for years, caused me to go off the deep end a bit, and for that I am sorry.
"So it makes sense for lawyers to use these cases to hit back at the RIAA since they have a better chance of winning."
I have to disagree with this one. If I was a judge/juror on a case and the defense was placing focus on some emotional, irrelevant piece of information, my first thought would be 'what are they hiding?' IMHO, pulling a move like this weakens a case, as it is an attempt to divert attention from the true issue.
"You have two options, study our market, find the inefficiency (lack of cable competition, IP monopolies from the networks), and solve the problem in innovative ways like pollution credits worked for the power industry. Or you can pass stupid laws that create giant externalities and could easily put the customer in a worse position (consolidate content companies, promote more exclusive channel deals, and remove competition from the market which drive up prices)."
Ahhhh, so in other words, you're saying that the customer will continue to get trampled, unless the government steps in and does something well thought out, without bias caused by a multitude corporate lobbying and "donations". I'm not really liking my chances here.
"Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
Does anyone else get tired of all the "Joe Schmoe is 72 years old, has a goiter and an infected big toenail, but the RIAA still presses on!" sensationalism?
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself. How about focusing on the fact that the RIAA has no proof, or legal grounds, and leave it at that!
Oooooh.. poor cable companies.. I feel bad.. I really do.
You fight care sooooo much about your customer, but the mean networks force you to treat us like mindless drones.. Excuse me while I shed a tear or two for you.
The reason: the emerging markets of countries such as Brazil, China, India or Russia, which will be responsible of 775 new PCs and laptop computers.
Uhhhhh... yeah..
Michael Moore and Rosie wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned, much less shot
Damn.. thats the one thing I was looking forward to in our Brave New World.
Imagine a 5 hour cross country flight, sitting next to some idiot yapping at the top of his voice on his cell phone. That after having to strip down, empty your bags, and submit to a body cavity search just to get through security. That cross country road trip is sounding better and better every day...
All of these lawsuits/stupid moves by the various AAs going on look to me like the final death throws of a star about to supernova.. So using that dumb analogy, two questions:
1) How long until the entire media industry implodes due to their short-sightedness and inability to embrace new technology?
2) In the ensuing implosion/explosion, how many consumers and even businesses will the media industry bring down with them?
The one charge of kidnapping is for the other boy found, who was snatched 4 days before they caught Devlin. The second kidnapping charge (for kidnapping Shawn) is still pending/under investigation according to the latest news stories.
1) Inconsistency in the UI. Yes, it's inconsistant in Vista. It's the same in OSX. Look at the differences between iTunes and other core programs and iLife.
This isn't exactly fair either. The iLife suite is separate from the OS. Its not bundled with the OS (though it is with new computers) and is simply a suite of applications that runs on the OS. So stating that the atrocity that is iLife's UI consistancy, as being a problem with the OS, would be the same as complaining that MS Office's UI is inconsistent with windows. I'm not saying there aren't serious issues with the iLife UI (it drives me up a wall, and I REALLY hope that Apple follows its own UI guidelines in iLife '07), but I dont think it is fair to claim it is an issue with the OS UI.
IMO, looking across OS X itself, the UI is more consistant than the Vista UI.
Sorry, my thought process was cut off while posting..
The other point I wanted to make is that we dont know one way or another if these stories were told with permission. So who would I go to with my personal data on a broken hard drive?? Company 1 that is known to blab stories about how their clients lost data (and who may or may not be getting said customers permission)? Or Company 2 who keeps their mouth shut, and just gets the job done.
No I don't, nor did I claim to.. in fact, for the guy who's name they specifically mention, I suspect they probably did.
That being said, any company that would feel the need to air their clients unfortunate situations for the sake of marketing (permission or not) isn't a company I personally would want to give my business to.
I like my data to be private, and if I was ever in need of a data recovery company, I would expect them to be professional, and respect my privacy/data.
Here you have a company airing their clients misfortunes all over the net.. and in one case even specifying the name of the individual. Doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about how well they respect a client's privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
A guy I knew was a cyclist. He had a similar thought but with semi-trucks on a freeway.
It didn't work out too well.
... Ten bucks says, the US gov never pays up.
2. I'm a simple man. I have no idea what either of these have to do with my post/concern. 3. The article is about the RIAA's standard complaint -- which it has used in 30,000 cases, mostly uncontested -- being insufficient.
4. Ms. Schwartz's MS is not relevant to that issue, so it is in my view "offtopic".
5. Ms. Schwartz's MS is relevant to the brutality and immorality and moral impoverishment of the freaks and ghouls pursuing her with their frivolous litigation, which is likewise "offtopic". So the article is about the illegitimacy of the RIAA standard complaint. That is wonderful, and I agree 100%. And you view the MS issue to not be on the topic of the article. Then why devote 20% (1 of 5 sentences) in your summary to the fact that she has MS? You may think I am heartless for questioning this, but I am not intending to be.
I may simply be misunderstanding your points, but I am truly one of the American public who is concerned about this mockery of the law by the RIAA, and am just trying to understand, from a "lets get this problem fixed" standpoint, what the most important pieces are (you are a lawyer, I am not. To me, the law seems VERY confusing, and seems to allow people to do many, many heartless, terrible things. Thus, from my small exposure, focusing on those allowed heartless, terrible things, doesnt seem to solve the problem).
There are a lot of people out there who do and say VERY heartless things, but they are within the law to do them. But if they are doing something illegal while doing those heartless things, it seems to me that we should focus on the illegality of it, which stops them from 1) doing the illegal bit, 2) doing the heartless bit. If we focus on the heartless (but seemingly legal) piece, we get nowhere. Again, I realize I may be 100% wrong here, and would like to know if I am.
Ray-
;) ).
Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope I am not "foe'd" yet, so I can clarify what I was trying to say.
The fact that there are people with MS, old ladies, those who have never even had an internet connection, being sued by the RIAA is terrible. And if they are truly targeting those kind of people, they are the most despicable of the despicable.
My only concern is that when an emotional plea is sent out in a description of a court case, the public changes their focus from "The RIAA is making a mockery of our justice system" to "The RIAA is attacking people with horrible diseases." I may be wrong about this, but in this country, you are free to sue anyone, regardless of their status, health, etc. What you are NOT (supposed) to be allowed to do is bring the kind of litigation against ANYONE without proof or grounds as the RIAA is doing. Now I may be 100% off on these thoughts (as I am not a lawyer, dont play one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but it seems to me that to put the focus on the illegality of what the RIAA is doing, rather than the emotional side, may cause more sweeping changes.
All of that being said, I am not a lawyer, and would like to hear more of the other side of the coin (that is unless I have been foe'd and you never read this
Whoa.. hold on here. Insensitive clod?
I realize that MS is a horrible disease, and would never wish it on anyone. That being said, 1) having a disease does not give you a free card to do anything you want. 2) It doesn't make what the RIAA is doing to other folks any easier.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that no one, regardless of disease, race, creed, whatever, should be subjected to this kind of distortion of the law by the RIAA. Using lines like "even though she has MS, the RIAA presses on" in my mind implies that the RIAA should not be going after her, simply because her disease. Well, what if she had CF? AIDS? Stage 4 Cancer? And how about those who aren't suffering from disease? Are they somehow more deserving of these kinds of false litigation because they dont have MS?
IMHO, what the RIAA is doing is horrible, regardless of other circumstances in a person's life. By putting the focus on those other circumstances, you are distorting the issue, and are simply making exceptions to the rule, rather than fixing the whole thing. I would much rather see the outcome be "Improper litigation without proof by the RIAA is stopped," rather than "Improper litigation without proof by the RIAA is stopped against those with MS."
_14k4-
To be completely honest, that was not my intent in any way. I completely understand the points that the OP is trying to make. The problem comes in where cable co's have complete monopolies in many areas (take my area- very wooded, tall trees so few can get satellite, only one option for cable TV. What does it cost? $75.00 for the basic analog channels the last time I checked). This particular cable company has actively prevented other cable cos from coming in, and those who want cable, pay the price (the price I pay is not having cable.. I wish more around here would do the same, but they go along with it).
Then the OP makes the point that proper and innovative laws are what will protect the consumer. Well, when was the last time you saw a proper or innovative law that would regulate a large corporation come into play? As I see it, the problem is 3-fold: in many areas cable companies have monopolies, and thus typical economics don't come into play. Second, as with any big industry, lobbying has gotten out of control, and the government has gotten to the point that it is acting as an agent of industry. Finally, many industries (including the cable companies) cling to old business models, that many consumers are starting to realize, aren't very consumer friendly. Due to problem 1, when it comes to cable co's there in some areas, there is no competition to cause change.
And I truly do apologize for the hubris and adolescence in my replies. I guess being in an area (which may be unique) with a cable situation that is very anti-consumer, and has been in place for years, caused me to go off the deep end a bit, and for that I am sorry.
"So it makes sense for lawyers to use these cases to hit back at the RIAA since they have a better chance of winning."
I have to disagree with this one. If I was a judge/juror on a case and the defense was placing focus on some emotional, irrelevant piece of information, my first thought would be 'what are they hiding?' IMHO, pulling a move like this weakens a case, as it is an attempt to divert attention from the true issue.
"You have two options, study our market, find the inefficiency (lack of cable competition, IP monopolies from the networks), and solve the problem in innovative ways like pollution credits worked for the power industry. Or you can pass stupid laws that create giant externalities and could easily put the customer in a worse position (consolidate content companies, promote more exclusive channel deals, and remove competition from the market which drive up prices)."
Ahhhh, so in other words, you're saying that the customer will continue to get trampled, unless the government steps in and does something well thought out, without bias caused by a multitude corporate lobbying and "donations". I'm not really liking my chances here.
"Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
Does anyone else get tired of all the "Joe Schmoe is 72 years old, has a goiter and an infected big toenail, but the RIAA still presses on!" sensationalism?
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself. How about focusing on the fact that the RIAA has no proof, or legal grounds, and leave it at that!
Oooooh.. poor cable companies.. I feel bad.. I really do.
You fight care sooooo much about your customer, but the mean networks force you to treat us like mindless drones.. Excuse me while I shed a tear or two for you.
Uhhhhh... yeah..
Damn.. thats the one thing I was looking forward to in our Brave New World.
Imagine a 5 hour cross country flight, sitting next to some idiot yapping at the top of his voice on his cell phone. That after having to strip down, empty your bags, and submit to a body cavity search just to get through security. That cross country road trip is sounding better and better every day...
That one I can answer.
About 8 minutes.
All of these lawsuits/stupid moves by the various AAs going on look to me like the final death throws of a star about to supernova.. So using that dumb analogy, two questions:
1) How long until the entire media industry implodes due to their short-sightedness and inability to embrace new technology?
2) In the ensuing implosion/explosion, how many consumers and even businesses will the media industry bring down with them?
And I've seen plenty of AJAX-based apps put out just this year that deserve a D- for user friendliness as well, so dont feel too bad ;)
... the park ranger stopped by, but was nice and "turned a blind eye". They were there for the "event", and were not $800 out of pocket.
But yes, a homeless man did help them pick up.. AFTER the event.
The one charge of kidnapping is for the other boy found, who was snatched 4 days before they caught Devlin. The second kidnapping charge (for kidnapping Shawn) is still pending/under investigation according to the latest news stories.
This isn't exactly fair either. The iLife suite is separate from the OS. Its not bundled with the OS (though it is with new computers) and is simply a suite of applications that runs on the OS. So stating that the atrocity that is iLife's UI consistancy, as being a problem with the OS, would be the same as complaining that MS Office's UI is inconsistent with windows. I'm not saying there aren't serious issues with the iLife UI (it drives me up a wall, and I REALLY hope that Apple follows its own UI guidelines in iLife '07), but I dont think it is fair to claim it is an issue with the OS UI.
IMO, looking across OS X itself, the UI is more consistant than the Vista UI.
Sorry, my thought process was cut off while posting..
The other point I wanted to make is that we dont know one way or another if these stories were told with permission. So who would I go to with my personal data on a broken hard drive?? Company 1 that is known to blab stories about how their clients lost data (and who may or may not be getting said customers permission)? Or Company 2 who keeps their mouth shut, and just gets the job done.
Mark me down for Company 2.
No I don't, nor did I claim to.. in fact, for the guy who's name they specifically mention, I suspect they probably did.
That being said, any company that would feel the need to air their clients unfortunate situations for the sake of marketing (permission or not) isn't a company I personally would want to give my business to.
... dont wanna fall asleep ...
damn you slashdot! Now I have cheesy late 90's Aerosmith humming in my brain..
I like my data to be private, and if I was ever in need of a data recovery company, I would expect them to be professional, and respect my privacy/data.
Here you have a company airing their clients misfortunes all over the net.. and in one case even specifying the name of the individual. Doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about how well they respect a client's privacy.
Is it that they aren't interested?? Or did they all get turned down for the mortgage they needed to purchase a PS3?