And for the command-line wary, you can use an application like TinkerTool (available from finer download site such as MacUpdate or VersionTracker) to show invisible files in the Finder, or if you don't want to muck around with that:
In the Finder, select "Go To Folder..." from the "Go" menu (or hit cmd-shift-G on the keyboard, type in '/Volumes/NAMEOFYOURIPOD/iPod_Control/Music/F$$' where NAMEOFYOURIPOD is, you guessed it, the name of your iPod and $$ is a number starting at 00 and counting up (01, 02, 03...mine goes up to 19, I don't know if it's a fixed number so your's may be more or less). You'll find your files place seemingly randomly with slightly mangled filenames in those directories. Unfortunately, you can't just go to the Music directory and pick one because they're all hidden folders as well.
While it's totally safe to copy the files out of there, as another poster stated you wouldn't want to just drop a file in one of them as your iPod won't recognize and play it.
Well, I guess me and my lack of knowledge of U.S. history are doing better than you and your flawed knowledge not only of U.S. History but also of politics and the legal system as well.
Let me explain this to you again as simply as possible. An analogy:
If you don't send me a million dollars, I'm going to nuke you and your family. There, I just threatened you as a means of strong-arming you into doing something. It doesn't mean I have the power to actually do what I threatened, but that doesn't mean I can't make the threat. Now if you're stupid enough to believe that I can actually do this and you follow through and send me the money, well let me know so that I can provide you with an address. But that still doesn't make my claim of power real. Call my bluff and there's not much I can do about it.
Yes, secession was threatened prior to the Civil War. I never stated that it wasn't. But if you recall, no state prior to the Civil War actually seceded. In fact, depending on whose view you agree with from the Reconstruction period, you could argue that no state has ever seceded.
All I said (and correctly) is that secession is not legal under the Constitution. States are not given that power, for the Constitution is not between the states, it is between the people. This was explicitly part of the Framers intentions, as one of the problems under the Articles of Confederation was too much power reserved to the states that in effect castrated what the National Congress could accomplish. To leave the power of secession to the states after the ratification of the Constitution would have given them a significant piece of leverage to limit the federal government's legitimate exercise of its delegated powers, and thus such a power does not exist.
So, if you're still not convinced I'll dig up a list of sources besides the "Sons and Daughters guide to U.S. History" to both support my point and for you to learn your history from, since obviously your fourth grade education isn't quite cutting it.
What you and AC (and the rest of your kin here who apparently haven't realized that the Confederacy lost) are arguing is that because the Constitution 1. doesn't give all power to the federal government and 2. allows that individuals may have rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the federal government is therefore not the higher level of government. It's a bogus argument.
1. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of government and to keep what powers government maintained as close to home as feasible. Thus the idea of separation of powers and the federal system, but also the fact that the federal government is one of enumerated powers: that which is not given is considered to be retained by the people. Amendment 10.
2. This is a big reason why the Madisonians were opposed to a Bill of Rights in the first place. On the one hand they thought it unnecessary because the federal government was not supposed to exceed its enumerated powers and on the other hand they feared that if the rights of individuals were explicitly listed, then future generations may construe that to believe that only those specific rights were intended to be protected. The 9th amendment was the compromise.
3. While we're assigning homework, why don't you flip a page and read number 14 (Section 1 to be exact). The one that states that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections apply to the states as well as the federal government, correcting an error the Framers made by not making it explicit in the original text (since it was interpreted between ratification of the Constitution and ratification of the 14th amendment that the BoR did not apply to states). Okay, so now we see that the Constitution limits the power of the states as well.
The primary purpose of the Constitution was to:
1. Provide for the organization of a national government. 2. Define the powers of government (again, primarily at the national level, but also somewhat at the state level). 3. And protect the rights of the citizenry.
While there are realms in which the federal government is not allowed to legislate, within its own sphere it is the pre-eminent legislative and governing body in the nation. States are required to follow laws passed by the federal government that are within its legitimate capacity. What you and others here have insinuated is that because there are limits to what the federal government can do that makes it somehow inferior to state governments. NEWSFLASH: the power of state governments is limited as well. State governments are bound to obey and follow the constitution as well. Again, the rights of individuals are protected from state interference as well. The Constitution is not a compact between the states, it is explicitly a compact between the people and the power to break the compact is reserved solely to them (hence why, despite some people's lack of understanding, states cannot secede).
Many corporations that employ people all over the country have their headquarters in Boston. These corporations benefit because their execs and other employees at said office are better able to get to and fro work. Their benefit is then "trickled down" or out to others in the country who live in states where they employ people.
Okay, so it's not the strongest argument in the world, just what I could make up in 15 seconds. The point is somebody could come up with some argument that is valid to a point that you or I or others would disagree with. Given other transportation routes I could argue that building a highway through SD was a waste of taxpayer money as it only really benefits people in SD. I live in AZ, if I travel cross-country it's usually on I40 or I10. Maybe the system could have just been built through states that had the money to pony up for it, and really the only reason it went through SD was so that they wouldn't be left out. But is that really my problem? I think the problem here is that so much of this is subjective in terms of what value do these projects have and who are they valuable to.
I applaud your efforts to seek out some solution to the problem, I just think that if you really want to attack it you need to get closer to the root of the whole thing and solve it systemically (like maybe why are we stuck with a two party (or as some might say "one party, two head") system?). Maybe getting rid of the House or the Senate and replacing it with an legislative body elected "at large" nationally instead of state by state (not necessarily a good idea, but one possibility and it does have some merit).
And having recently purchased both a new Powerbook and a new iPod, with packaging that clearly states "Designed by Apple in California" and "Assembled in Taiwan", I would suspect they aren't making computers there anymore.
You got a deal. In exchange I would like you to kindly refund any and all tax dollars I have paid that have been spent on military projects, oil and coal subsidies, mining and logging subsidies, highways, stadiums, the space program, most but not all farm subsidies, and any other program or project I don't like.
Yeah but that whole "confederation" ended when the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution isn't a compact between the government and states, it's a compact between the government and the people. There's a reason it starts off "We the People of the United States" not "We the People of Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and while certain powers are reserved to the states (and others to the federal government, and others are shared, and others are denied to both), it very clearly states who is on top. That's why secession isn't constitutional.
And will you be this principled when it's your state's slip-and-slide?
Not to say I completely disagree with you, but that's the way the system works. People in MA pay for Florida to get their slip-and-slide so that they can have their Big Dig, so that AZ can have its CAP canal and on and on and on. This isn't meant to justify "pork" spending. Pork is bad, but some local projects that are funded by the feds are legitimate. The problem is how do you separate pure pork from those legitimate projects.
Some argue we should just eliminate the whole system by taking the federal government out of it, gut national income taxes and spending and let states the tax and spend for themselves. Then you have the problem of projects that a state simply can not fund for themselves but we all benefit from indirectly, like for instance an interstate through South Dakota. Say for example that SD can't afford to build it but the rest of the country would benefit from it by being able to transport goods cross country or being able to drive themselves. Should the rest of us help fund it? If you say yes, you just opened the whole can of worms again and we're back where we started.
Not entirely true. Piestewa (formerly Squaw Peak) Parkway was built with some federal funding as well, although you are correct that the vast majority of the funding is/was local and state (in fact if I recall correctly almost all of the early funding was just city of Phoenix). Just because it doesn't have an I or US Highway on the sign doesn't mean the feds didn't chip in to build it. That's a big (if not the only) reason why MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) et al. care about the Valley's air quality - violation of fed air quality standards will reduce eligibility for federal transportation funding.
While I would agree with most that the difference between projected cost and actual costs is pretty insane, people do seem to miss a couple of key points for at least some of the price tag discrepancy:
1. 2.4 billion dollars was the projected cost in 1985. Almost 20 years between that initial proposal and completion of the whole thing. Since when has the government (or even big business, although examples from their world are pretty hard to find since the shortsightedness of corporations generally prevents them from even thinking of something this long term) been able to accurately predict costs over this length of time?
2. Changes in the project over that period of time probably had a lot to do with the change in costs along with some amount of legitimate cost overruns for unforeseen engineering problems.
3. $2.4b was a bullshit number. A friend in Boston who was living there at the time said nobody with any common sense believed they could do what they were promising for that price, and were pretty certain that it the number they came up with was just to get the project sold. Kinda like a lot of George' W's BS budget predictions to sell his Medicare "deform" plan (Not to single out Shrub though, since this is common practice of most politicians of both parties, and presidents in particular; he just happens to be the current idiot-in-chief and poster boy.)
Of course, in the end it's all irrelevant; no matter what the price tag, it's a waste of money. Give it 5-10 years (if even that), and what will you have? A gridlocked freeway through downtown. Kinda like you had before. Except you won't have to look at it.
But in any case, it's a waste of your money and mine - with that kind of money you could get a new nuclear sub, a B2 bomber, AND an aircraft carrier (sans aircraft)
But I thought you were implying wasting money was a bad thing? Why would we want all that useless crap?
I have read them, many more times then I would like, thank you.
And while you are correct, nowhere do they explicitly say "copyright violation is the same as theft", it is very clear by the way in which it is treated that it is "theft" in the eyes of the law. I erred in implying a textual basis, but I stand by my statement until you or somebody else can offer proof otherwise.
-1 Offtopic? Dude, where can I get some of what the mods are smoking, because they're either high or not bothering to read the whole post. This was fucking HILARIOUS. Even the most unthinking dittohead should be able to see the humor in it.
My guess is they are more referring to an equal playing field for all merchants. If you accept the premise that DRM of some sort is inevitable, then in order to keep that playing field level you need to have a single standard for all media vendors (whether they be content creators or hardware manufacturers) to have equal access. Otherwise you could have a situation where say MS won't let you encode your music using their DRM if they disapprove of its content, as Walmart already does when they refuse to sell "objectionable" products. Unfortunately, this scenario could be even more disastrous as it could have the effect of completely locking you out of the marketplace, as Walmart will be able to do once they manage to shut down everybody else in the retail sector.
Hell, you can sue someone for NOT breaking into your house if you want. You can sue them for LOOKING at your house.
Although your lawyer might not be in business for long if he kept filing suits like these. Even courts have some boundary for what they will allow as far as frivolous suits go, and in most state have some sort of system where they can fine lawyers for filing them (the operative term in this system is CAN, as in they don't have to...).
Trespass and battery are both torts*, and you can sue for intentional trespass, even absent damage to your property (although obviously damages will be less). I was speaking of them as torts, so no mistake on my part. If you're going to correct somebody, then do it right.
(*although yes they are criminal actions as well)
You are correct, OJ was sued for wrongful death. But aside from failing to identify the correct tort, my explanation was correct. So sue me (bad pun intended).
As for the criminal penalties not being as harsh as monetary, if someone gets sued by 1000 people for $1000 each, he declares bankruptcy and walks away. You can't do that to a jail sentence.
Similar to the house analogy (and you can still sue somebody for breaking into your house, at least in the U.S.), it may make little sense to sue somebody if you don't have any real hope of recovering a judgment from them. However, I'd still be happy to see them bankrupt.
As far as a jail sentence, there's no reason you can't have both civil and criminal liability for spamming. Except the DMA doesn't want you to be able to sue them.
The spam law is an assertion of Congress's commerce power: under the Constitution Congress has the sole power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus if Congress chooses to exercise its power in a certain law, it can pre-empt all other state laws.
I'm not too up on my drug laws and where exactly they fall in the constitutional scheme, but I'm guessing because it's a police power, it's jointly shared by fed and state, or that Congress has specifically allowed states to set their own laws so long as they are not weaker.
And in reality most of the medical marijuana laws are unenforceable because the states have no authority to legalize marijuana for such use in contradiction of federal law. I think for the most part Ashcroft and his goon squad have just not made it a priority to crack down.
I'm sure the DMA likes it better this way, since it's easier to just buy off Congress and not have to purchase 50 state legislatures.
State power is delegated in 4 ways in the U.S. system:
1. Delegated to Congress (initially very little, but thanks in large part to commerce power, Congress has been able to extend it pretty far) 2. Delegated to the states (basically everything not given to the federal government and not prohibited) 3. Shared by states and Congress 4. Prohibited from both Congress and states (think Bill of Rights).
If it falls under Congress's control, if Congress chooses to assert its power it overrides any state law in conflict unless Congress specifically states otherwise. For example, with the Clean Air Act Congress has forever allowed California to set higher standards, but has forbidden other states from doing so (they can choose between using the federal standards or California's, although the Republicans have been trying to change this, almost passing it this year as a rider to the barely-failed omnibus spending bill).
Actually, you can sue somebody who breaks into your house. It's called trespass. It's usually pointless to bother suing them, since if they don't have any money you're going to end up spending an assload in lawyer's fees to get a judgment you can't enforce.
Think OJ: First the state brought criminal charges against him for murder, but since he was found not guilty, he got no jail time. Then the family brought a civil suit for battery, which he lost. Most criminal charges have an equivalent tort for which you can file a civil action against the party, and since it's in a civil court not a criminal court you don't run afoul of the whole no double-jeopardy thing.
It's also easier to win a civil case then a criminal case, since the burden of proof is lower ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and it offers the opportunity for some from of actual compensation, since you can get damages (usually monetary, but not always) which the criminal system does not. My guess is this is where it really makes spammers happy, since it protects them from having to pay out in civil courts, and from what I've gathered the criminal penalties aren't exactly all that harsh...
Obligatory book plug: The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era by Jeremy Rifkin.
The basic argument is this: In every generation technological improvements have led to decline in employment in one sector of the economy, but those same or similar technological changes have created large new sectors of the economy to absorb the burgeoning masses of unemployed workers (i.e., farm laborers migrated to cities and got jobs in factories).
The problem is that the new technologies are still creating new industries, but those industries simply can't employ the number of workers being down-sized, regardless of whether or not they have the requisite skills. Even if by some miracle we were able to re-train every unemployed autoworker in the country and give them a PhD, how many of them would the biotech industry (one of the new big "growth sectors") be able to employ?
Now that even the service industries are being automated to replace flesh and blood workers, where will the new jobs be?
In many ways, we are finally beginning to see the beginnings of the Star Trek fantasy of nobody working - unfortunately, it isn't panning out quite like we imagined, since the spoils of all this newfound wealth and leisure time are not being shared, but rather hoarded by a privileged few.
The only flaw I can find in your reasoning is basing your calculations on flights operating at maximum capacity. Thus, you are arguing theoretically what a passenger plane is capable of rather than what it actually achieves. I think it would be better to calculate mileage based on how many passengers they actually carry (probably based on some industry averages for different types of flights, i.e. short vs. long, etc) rather than what they are capable of carrying. Either number (maximum potential vs. actual) is equally valid, but the realist in me says it's better to examine tech as it's actually used rather than how it's designed to be used (unless of course we're talking about the RIAA and filesharing...:).
I would define "success" minimally as "being able to make enough money to support yourself".
From most of the people I know, I would say that being in an "indie band" is only something you do in addition to your day job because you would starve otherwise. Most have ambitions to at least be able to one day support themselves making music.
If artists sign contracts that suck, that may be their fault, it may be the label's fault, but it's certainly not Apple's or anyone else's fault.
Lots of people get screwed into crappy contracts everyday because there really aren't any viable alternatives. Read your cell phone service agreement, or your ISP's terms and conditions, or anyone of the many click-through agreements for software you've installed. You'll be appalled at the things you have signed away. And really you have little choice.**
It's not really any different for musicians. Yeah, they can give the major labels the finger and go sign with an indie label or if they're really adventurous start their own label. But the reality is that their chances for success in going that route are almost zero. If you think the success rate for bands signed to major labels is pretty low, you should see the success rate for indie artists. Even if you assume and allow for indie artists being "less talented" (which I would argue is untrue), the difference is huge. So really, if you want a chance at being able to make a good living or even striking it rich, you're only choice is to sign with the majors, and get stuck with a bad deal.
---
**Yeah, you can argue that "well you don't have to use the software", but this is pretty bogus. You're only real option is you don't want to agree to the terms is to use a computer or not, or to get a cellphone or not, since almost all software and almost every cell company use the exact same "give us your first-born" terms in their agreement.
1)...Why do you, as a consumer, care where Apple gets its profits? Apple is in the business of making money...
Because as a consumer everybody should care about where and how corporations they purchase from make their money. If more people did the world would probably be a much better place.
2) Apple doesn't need to be worrying about getting more money into the hands of the artist -- that's the artist's and the label's fight. Apple barely nets anything on the music sold. Why should it fork over more to the artist
See Above.
Because Apple sells itself as being about more than just the bottom line. Their whole branding is based on this illusion that they are revolutionizing the world, "thinking differently", etc. The reality is far different. They are sugarcoating life for us. They took the same old plantation system from the pre-digital era and created a well designed, easy to use, flashy system for carrying it online with the iTMS. If Apple really wanted to be revolutionary they would have done it differently. Instead it's just co-opting the appearance of revolutionary while neglecting the actual substance.
Use the tech because it's cool.
Using something just because it's cool has got to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard to use something. Use a tool because it enables you to get the job done, because it's wastes fewer resources, or because it works better than other tools, but not because you'll look cool while doing it (although if it can look cool at the sam time, I'm fine with that).
But don't expect technology companies to move mountains.
And why shouldn't we? Tech companies (and all other companies for that matter) take a lot more than they give from consumers and communities, otherwise they wouldn't be making that sought after "profit" that they then send off to do-nothing shareholders. Why shouldn't we expect a little more from them then just to sell us crap? Unless of course you're one of those "corporations must maximize shareholder value at the expense of all others" types. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with shareholders getting reasonable value in return for the small risk the original purchaser took when he bought the stock (since every subsequent purchase doesn't add anything to the coffers of the company), but this medieval idea that shareholders are the only ones that matter is pretty perverse.
Except US statute (and I'm guessing a much of the rest of the world) equates copyright violation with theft for legal purposes. Now if you're saying morally or ethically it is not theft, that's another story, but legally it is.
Slashdot Mirror
And for the command-line wary, you can use an application like TinkerTool (available from finer download site such as MacUpdate or VersionTracker) to show invisible files in the Finder, or if you don't want to muck around with that:
In the Finder, select "Go To Folder..." from the "Go" menu (or hit cmd-shift-G on the keyboard, type in '/Volumes/NAMEOFYOURIPOD/iPod_Control/Music/F$$' where NAMEOFYOURIPOD is, you guessed it, the name of your iPod and $$ is a number starting at 00 and counting up (01, 02, 03...mine goes up to 19, I don't know if it's a fixed number so your's may be more or less). You'll find your files place seemingly randomly with slightly mangled filenames in those directories. Unfortunately, you can't just go to the Music directory and pick one because they're all hidden folders as well.
While it's totally safe to copy the files out of there, as another poster stated you wouldn't want to just drop a file in one of them as your iPod won't recognize and play it.
Well, I guess me and my lack of knowledge of U.S. history are doing better than you and your flawed knowledge not only of U.S. History but also of politics and the legal system as well.
Let me explain this to you again as simply as possible. An analogy:
If you don't send me a million dollars, I'm going to nuke you and your family. There, I just threatened you as a means of strong-arming you into doing something. It doesn't mean I have the power to actually do what I threatened, but that doesn't mean I can't make the threat. Now if you're stupid enough to believe that I can actually do this and you follow through and send me the money, well let me know so that I can provide you with an address. But that still doesn't make my claim of power real. Call my bluff and there's not much I can do about it.
Yes, secession was threatened prior to the Civil War. I never stated that it wasn't. But if you recall, no state prior to the Civil War actually seceded. In fact, depending on whose view you agree with from the Reconstruction period, you could argue that no state has ever seceded.
All I said (and correctly) is that secession is not legal under the Constitution. States are not given that power, for the Constitution is not between the states, it is between the people. This was explicitly part of the Framers intentions, as one of the problems under the Articles of Confederation was too much power reserved to the states that in effect castrated what the National Congress could accomplish. To leave the power of secession to the states after the ratification of the Constitution would have given them a significant piece of leverage to limit the federal government's legitimate exercise of its delegated powers, and thus such a power does not exist.
So, if you're still not convinced I'll dig up a list of sources besides the "Sons and Daughters guide to U.S. History" to both support my point and for you to learn your history from, since obviously your fourth grade education isn't quite cutting it.
What you and AC (and the rest of your kin here who apparently haven't realized that the Confederacy lost) are arguing is that because the Constitution 1. doesn't give all power to the federal government and 2. allows that individuals may have rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the federal government is therefore not the higher level of government. It's a bogus argument.
1. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of government and to keep what powers government maintained as close to home as feasible. Thus the idea of separation of powers and the federal system, but also the fact that the federal government is one of enumerated powers: that which is not given is considered to be retained by the people. Amendment 10.
2. This is a big reason why the Madisonians were opposed to a Bill of Rights in the first place. On the one hand they thought it unnecessary because the federal government was not supposed to exceed its enumerated powers and on the other hand they feared that if the rights of individuals were explicitly listed, then future generations may construe that to believe that only those specific rights were intended to be protected. The 9th amendment was the compromise.
3. While we're assigning homework, why don't you flip a page and read number 14 (Section 1 to be exact). The one that states that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections apply to the states as well as the federal government, correcting an error the Framers made by not making it explicit in the original text (since it was interpreted between ratification of the Constitution and ratification of the 14th amendment that the BoR did not apply to states). Okay, so now we see that the Constitution limits the power of the states as well.
The primary purpose of the Constitution was to:
1. Provide for the organization of a national government.
2. Define the powers of government (again, primarily at the national level, but also somewhat at the state level).
3. And protect the rights of the citizenry.
While there are realms in which the federal government is not allowed to legislate, within its own sphere it is the pre-eminent legislative and governing body in the nation. States are required to follow laws passed by the federal government that are within its legitimate capacity. What you and others here have insinuated is that because there are limits to what the federal government can do that makes it somehow inferior to state governments. NEWSFLASH: the power of state governments is limited as well. State governments are bound to obey and follow the constitution as well. Again, the rights of individuals are protected from state interference as well. The Constitution is not a compact between the states, it is explicitly a compact between the people and the power to break the compact is reserved solely to them (hence why, despite some people's lack of understanding, states cannot secede).
Many corporations that employ people all over the country have their headquarters in Boston. These corporations benefit because their execs and other employees at said office are better able to get to and fro work. Their benefit is then "trickled down" or out to others in the country who live in states where they employ people.
Okay, so it's not the strongest argument in the world, just what I could make up in 15 seconds. The point is somebody could come up with some argument that is valid to a point that you or I or others would disagree with. Given other transportation routes I could argue that building a highway through SD was a waste of taxpayer money as it only really benefits people in SD. I live in AZ, if I travel cross-country it's usually on I40 or I10. Maybe the system could have just been built through states that had the money to pony up for it, and really the only reason it went through SD was so that they wouldn't be left out. But is that really my problem? I think the problem here is that so much of this is subjective in terms of what value do these projects have and who are they valuable to.
I applaud your efforts to seek out some solution to the problem, I just think that if you really want to attack it you need to get closer to the root of the whole thing and solve it systemically (like maybe why are we stuck with a two party (or as some might say "one party, two head") system?). Maybe getting rid of the House or the Senate and replacing it with an legislative body elected "at large" nationally instead of state by state (not necessarily a good idea, but one possibility and it does have some merit).
And having recently purchased both a new Powerbook and a new iPod, with packaging that clearly states "Designed by Apple in California" and "Assembled in Taiwan", I would suspect they aren't making computers there anymore.
You got a deal. In exchange I would like you to kindly refund any and all tax dollars I have paid that have been spent on military projects, oil and coal subsidies, mining and logging subsidies, highways, stadiums, the space program, most but not all farm subsidies, and any other program or project I don't like.
Yeah but that whole "confederation" ended when the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution isn't a compact between the government and states, it's a compact between the government and the people. There's a reason it starts off "We the People of the United States" not "We the People of Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and while certain powers are reserved to the states (and others to the federal government, and others are shared, and others are denied to both), it very clearly states who is on top. That's why secession isn't constitutional.
And will you be this principled when it's your state's slip-and-slide?
Not to say I completely disagree with you, but that's the way the system works. People in MA pay for Florida to get their slip-and-slide so that they can have their Big Dig, so that AZ can have its CAP canal and on and on and on. This isn't meant to justify "pork" spending. Pork is bad, but some local projects that are funded by the feds are legitimate. The problem is how do you separate pure pork from those legitimate projects.
Some argue we should just eliminate the whole system by taking the federal government out of it, gut national income taxes and spending and let states the tax and spend for themselves. Then you have the problem of projects that a state simply can not fund for themselves but we all benefit from indirectly, like for instance an interstate through South Dakota. Say for example that SD can't afford to build it but the rest of the country would benefit from it by being able to transport goods cross country or being able to drive themselves. Should the rest of us help fund it? If you say yes, you just opened the whole can of worms again and we're back where we started.
Not entirely true. Piestewa (formerly Squaw Peak) Parkway was built with some federal funding as well, although you are correct that the vast majority of the funding is/was local and state (in fact if I recall correctly almost all of the early funding was just city of Phoenix). Just because it doesn't have an I or US Highway on the sign doesn't mean the feds didn't chip in to build it. That's a big (if not the only) reason why MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) et al. care about the Valley's air quality - violation of fed air quality standards will reduce eligibility for federal transportation funding.
While I would agree with most that the difference between projected cost and actual costs is pretty insane, people do seem to miss a couple of key points for at least some of the price tag discrepancy:
1. 2.4 billion dollars was the projected cost in 1985. Almost 20 years between that initial proposal and completion of the whole thing. Since when has the government (or even big business, although examples from their world are pretty hard to find since the shortsightedness of corporations generally prevents them from even thinking of something this long term) been able to accurately predict costs over this length of time?
2. Changes in the project over that period of time probably had a lot to do with the change in costs along with some amount of legitimate cost overruns for unforeseen engineering problems.
3. $2.4b was a bullshit number. A friend in Boston who was living there at the time said nobody with any common sense believed they could do what they were promising for that price, and were pretty certain that it the number they came up with was just to get the project sold. Kinda like a lot of George' W's BS budget predictions to sell his Medicare "deform" plan (Not to single out Shrub though, since this is common practice of most politicians of both parties, and presidents in particular; he just happens to be the current idiot-in-chief and poster boy.)
Of course, in the end it's all irrelevant; no matter what the price tag, it's a waste of money. Give it 5-10 years (if even that), and what will you have? A gridlocked freeway through downtown. Kinda like you had before. Except you won't have to look at it.
But in any case, it's a waste of your money and mine - with that kind of money you could get a new nuclear sub, a B2 bomber, AND an aircraft carrier (sans aircraft)
But I thought you were implying wasting money was a bad thing? Why would we want all that useless crap?
I have read them, many more times then I would like, thank you.
And while you are correct, nowhere do they explicitly say "copyright violation is the same as theft", it is very clear by the way in which it is treated that it is "theft" in the eyes of the law. I erred in implying a textual basis, but I stand by my statement until you or somebody else can offer proof otherwise.
-1 Offtopic? Dude, where can I get some of what the mods are smoking, because they're either high or not bothering to read the whole post. This was fucking HILARIOUS. Even the most unthinking dittohead should be able to see the humor in it.
My guess is they are more referring to an equal playing field for all merchants. If you accept the premise that DRM of some sort is inevitable, then in order to keep that playing field level you need to have a single standard for all media vendors (whether they be content creators or hardware manufacturers) to have equal access. Otherwise you could have a situation where say MS won't let you encode your music using their DRM if they disapprove of its content, as Walmart already does when they refuse to sell "objectionable" products. Unfortunately, this scenario could be even more disastrous as it could have the effect of completely locking you out of the marketplace, as Walmart will be able to do once they manage to shut down everybody else in the retail sector.
Unless you want to only listen to pre-DRM music, watch pre-DRM movies, and in general live in the past
With the direction most movies and music are going, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea...
Hell, you can sue someone for NOT breaking into your house if you want. You can sue them for LOOKING at your house.
Although your lawyer might not be in business for long if he kept filing suits like these. Even courts have some boundary for what they will allow as far as frivolous suits go, and in most state have some sort of system where they can fine lawyers for filing them (the operative term in this system is CAN, as in they don't have to...).
*Bzzzt* You're wrong.
Trespass and battery are both torts*, and you can sue for intentional trespass, even absent damage to your property (although obviously damages will be less). I was speaking of them as torts, so no mistake on my part. If you're going to correct somebody, then do it right.
(*although yes they are criminal actions as well)
You are correct, OJ was sued for wrongful death. But aside from failing to identify the correct tort, my explanation was correct. So sue me (bad pun intended).
As for the criminal penalties not being as harsh as monetary, if someone gets sued by 1000 people for $1000 each, he declares bankruptcy and walks away. You can't do that to a jail sentence.
Similar to the house analogy (and you can still sue somebody for breaking into your house, at least in the U.S.), it may make little sense to sue somebody if you don't have any real hope of recovering a judgment from them. However, I'd still be happy to see them bankrupt.
As far as a jail sentence, there's no reason you can't have both civil and criminal liability for spamming. Except the DMA doesn't want you to be able to sue them.
The spam law is an assertion of Congress's commerce power: under the Constitution Congress has the sole power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus if Congress chooses to exercise its power in a certain law, it can pre-empt all other state laws.
I'm not too up on my drug laws and where exactly they fall in the constitutional scheme, but I'm guessing because it's a police power, it's jointly shared by fed and state, or that Congress has specifically allowed states to set their own laws so long as they are not weaker.
And in reality most of the medical marijuana laws are unenforceable because the states have no authority to legalize marijuana for such use in contradiction of federal law. I think for the most part Ashcroft and his goon squad have just not made it a priority to crack down.
I'm sure the DMA likes it better this way, since it's easier to just buy off Congress and not have to purchase 50 state legislatures.
State power is delegated in 4 ways in the U.S. system:
1. Delegated to Congress (initially very little, but thanks in large part to commerce power, Congress has been able to extend it pretty far)
2. Delegated to the states (basically everything not given to the federal government and not prohibited)
3. Shared by states and Congress
4. Prohibited from both Congress and states (think Bill of Rights).
If it falls under Congress's control, if Congress chooses to assert its power it overrides any state law in conflict unless Congress specifically states otherwise. For example, with the Clean Air Act Congress has forever allowed California to set higher standards, but has forbidden other states from doing so (they can choose between using the federal standards or California's, although the Republicans have been trying to change this, almost passing it this year as a rider to the barely-failed omnibus spending bill).
Actually, you can sue somebody who breaks into your house. It's called trespass. It's usually pointless to bother suing them, since if they don't have any money you're going to end up spending an assload in lawyer's fees to get a judgment you can't enforce.
Think OJ: First the state brought criminal charges against him for murder, but since he was found not guilty, he got no jail time. Then the family brought a civil suit for battery, which he lost. Most criminal charges have an equivalent tort for which you can file a civil action against the party, and since it's in a civil court not a criminal court you don't run afoul of the whole no double-jeopardy thing.
It's also easier to win a civil case then a criminal case, since the burden of proof is lower ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and it offers the opportunity for some from of actual compensation, since you can get damages (usually monetary, but not always) which the criminal system does not. My guess is this is where it really makes spammers happy, since it protects them from having to pay out in civil courts, and from what I've gathered the criminal penalties aren't exactly all that harsh...
Except there won't be any jobs there either.
Obligatory book plug: The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era by Jeremy Rifkin.
The basic argument is this: In every generation technological improvements have led to decline in employment in one sector of the economy, but those same or similar technological changes have created large new sectors of the economy to absorb the burgeoning masses of unemployed workers (i.e., farm laborers migrated to cities and got jobs in factories).
The problem is that the new technologies are still creating new industries, but those industries simply can't employ the number of workers being down-sized, regardless of whether or not they have the requisite skills. Even if by some miracle we were able to re-train every unemployed autoworker in the country and give them a PhD, how many of them would the biotech industry (one of the new big "growth sectors") be able to employ?
Now that even the service industries are being automated to replace flesh and blood workers, where will the new jobs be?
In many ways, we are finally beginning to see the beginnings of the Star Trek fantasy of nobody working - unfortunately, it isn't panning out quite like we imagined, since the spoils of all this newfound wealth and leisure time are not being shared, but rather hoarded by a privileged few.
The only flaw I can find in your reasoning is basing your calculations on flights operating at maximum capacity. Thus, you are arguing theoretically what a passenger plane is capable of rather than what it actually achieves. I think it would be better to calculate mileage based on how many passengers they actually carry (probably based on some industry averages for different types of flights, i.e. short vs. long, etc) rather than what they are capable of carrying. Either number (maximum potential vs. actual) is equally valid, but the realist in me says it's better to examine tech as it's actually used rather than how it's designed to be used (unless of course we're talking about the RIAA and filesharing... :).
I would define "success" minimally as "being able to make enough money to support yourself".
From most of the people I know, I would say that being in an "indie band" is only something you do in addition to your day job because you would starve otherwise. Most have ambitions to at least be able to one day support themselves making music.
If artists sign contracts that suck, that may be their fault, it may be the label's fault, but it's certainly not Apple's or anyone else's fault.
Lots of people get screwed into crappy contracts everyday because there really aren't any viable alternatives. Read your cell phone service agreement, or your ISP's terms and conditions, or anyone of the many click-through agreements for software you've installed. You'll be appalled at the things you have signed away. And really you have little choice.**
It's not really any different for musicians. Yeah, they can give the major labels the finger and go sign with an indie label or if they're really adventurous start their own label. But the reality is that their chances for success in going that route are almost zero. If you think the success rate for bands signed to major labels is pretty low, you should see the success rate for indie artists. Even if you assume and allow for indie artists being "less talented" (which I would argue is untrue), the difference is huge. So really, if you want a chance at being able to make a good living or even striking it rich, you're only choice is to sign with the majors, and get stuck with a bad deal.
---
**Yeah, you can argue that "well you don't have to use the software", but this is pretty bogus. You're only real option is you don't want to agree to the terms is to use a computer or not, or to get a cellphone or not, since almost all software and almost every cell company use the exact same "give us your first-born" terms in their agreement.
1) ...Why do you, as a consumer, care where Apple gets its profits? Apple is in the business of making money...
Because as a consumer everybody should care about where and how corporations they purchase from make their money. If more people did the world would probably be a much better place.
2) Apple doesn't need to be worrying about getting more money into the hands of the artist -- that's the artist's and the label's fight. Apple barely nets anything on the music sold. Why should it fork over more to the artist
See Above.
Because Apple sells itself as being about more than just the bottom line. Their whole branding is based on this illusion that they are revolutionizing the world, "thinking differently", etc. The reality is far different. They are sugarcoating life for us. They took the same old plantation system from the pre-digital era and created a well designed, easy to use, flashy system for carrying it online with the iTMS. If Apple really wanted to be revolutionary they would have done it differently. Instead it's just co-opting the appearance of revolutionary while neglecting the actual substance.
Use the tech because it's cool.
Using something just because it's cool has got to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard to use something. Use a tool because it enables you to get the job done, because it's wastes fewer resources, or because it works better than other tools, but not because you'll look cool while doing it (although if it can look cool at the sam time, I'm fine with that).
But don't expect technology companies to move mountains.
And why shouldn't we? Tech companies (and all other companies for that matter) take a lot more than they give from consumers and communities, otherwise they wouldn't be making that sought after "profit" that they then send off to do-nothing shareholders. Why shouldn't we expect a little more from them then just to sell us crap? Unless of course you're one of those "corporations must maximize shareholder value at the expense of all others" types. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with shareholders getting reasonable value in return for the small risk the original purchaser took when he bought the stock (since every subsequent purchase doesn't add anything to the coffers of the company), but this medieval idea that shareholders are the only ones that matter is pretty perverse.
Except US statute (and I'm guessing a much of the rest of the world) equates copyright violation with theft for legal purposes. Now if you're saying morally or ethically it is not theft, that's another story, but legally it is.