I personally find it hard to believe that a Best Buy manager would say anyone was "sh** out of luck." It makes me doubt the objectivity of the article and the opinions in it.
Anyone with some creativity, a shrink-wrapping machine and an axe to grind could PR-bomb Best Buy or any other vendor they don't like. This is particularly true with technology products, since they often cost a lot and take up a small amount of space (cell phones, games, movies, the list goes on and on).
I'm not saying someone didn't get duped or treated unfairly, but as a Manager I know when someone loses their temper I have a harder time believing their story and/or wanting to help them (all other things being equal, that is).
From my experience and observation on both sides of the counter, civility and politeness are appropriate 99.5% of the time. This does not mean one has to be a carpet and get walked on. It does mean we can be assertive, articulate, persistent and *still* be polite; it very often yields better results. At the very least it allows one to maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that almost always pays off in the long run.
Maybe so, but I just bought one for my wife's 40th birthday. She loves it and I love it. I tried to convince her into a PS3 instead (the graphics! the Blu-ray player!) she said the Wii was simply more *fun*, and, after having played it for a few nights, I have to say I agree with her (I'm not 40 yet, but will be soon). Furthermore I could not find one anywhere; I had to buy one off eBay for $50.00 above retail, and X-mas is still months away.
My Co-worker/co-manager is female and she loves it, too. One of my female employees also thinks it's great.
From what I have seen, women love this console because it is more fun and more family friendly. That is saying a lot and it appears that the marketplace has spoken.
Perhaps you should reconsider your assertion that the GP's stats are incorrect.
Agreed. Even more so, Facts don't care at all. They simply are.
However, people can and do argue about what "facts" are, even to the point of trying to re-invent them by new interpretations of well established and almost completely incontrovertible data to make a new "fact," despite such interpretations not being supported by the scientific method they are supposed to espouse. This is a lot of what creationism in its new clothing (intelligent design) is trying to do.
I have to say I agree with the basic premise about spending a fortune on audio, but spending a chunk can sometimes be helpful depending on what you are buying. I moved from a $200.00 pair of headphones in 1997 to a $250 pair from the same maker (Sennheiser) in 2006. the new pair was "OK." so I returned them. After 2 months of poking around and reading reviews (some were informative and some not so) and looking at specifications I opted for Grado GS1000's instead. They cost $950, but the sound was much better. Some of the improvement was apparent right away, but the rest became more noticeable after a day or two: I heard subtle details and clarity I'd missed before (on the same equipment, mind you). I wanted to be able to listen to tunes directly on my MP3 player and Laptop without any bulky amps.
I think headphones generally are in a different camp than cables in that you get what you pay for, as long as you know what kind of listening experience you want. But as you spend more and more, the less improvement you get for your money (at least with headphones, but this is likely true with many other things as well), so you have to really want the uber-quality stuff if you're not made of money. Those headphones are the most expensive audio equipment I own: I have no fancy CD players, stereos, amps, speakers or cables, but I do have a pair of really good headphones.
However, it's worth noting that Obama wasn't around to vote for either the "Patriot Act" or the Iraq war resolution, since he joined the U.S. Senate in 2004.
While I can't say with 100% certainty that he would have voted against the patriot act (only Feingold did at the time), IMO there's a real chance he would have, given his stance on various social and civil rights issues. He certainly doesn't pass on opportunities to remind people of his opposition to the Iraq war from the start (particularly to distinguish himself against Sen. Clinton).
"There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD,"
If these are facts, how about some citations and references? Credible sources would make this assertion even more interesting.
"For something to be copyrighted, it has to be creative. That means most information can not be copyrighted."
I'd be willing to bet some cash that is *not* correct. AFAIK, all it takes for a work to be copyrighted is a)to create information or b)take previously existing information (including that gathered from a free source or sources) and organize it in a new form/fashion that can be useful.
For example: Weather reports from the Gov't (unless classified) are in the public domain. But if I organize weather reports in L.A. according to particular smog patterns on ozone action days inside of a certain temperature range that coincide with certain asthma problems and sell that information to hospitals, I'd bet that is copyright eligible material, as long as the new collection of data is actually new (i.e. no prior art).
Am I right or wrong about this assumption? (and yes, I know how that word breaks down...)
I think someone is seriously angry here. Angry, as in: not having a full understanding of what's really going on at College Bookstores and making us out as Public Enemy Number One.
As the owner of a small, privately owned (as in by me) College Bookstore (annual gross sales around $550,000/year) There are a few things I would like to point out. Before I do, let me insert the following caveats:
1) The principles upon which I choose to run my store are not necessarily how all bookstores do so (let alone those in my category of "small" and "privately owned"). Still, my comments are probably a good a place as any to start forming an understanding of College Bookstore practices. 2) I do actually care about customer service. However, I may not necessarily define the student who walks into the store with the intent of buying all his/her books elsewhere as a customer. 3) I do understand that owning a business and having it be successful in the long run is as much about relationship building (with customers and the institutions we serve) as it is about economic viability. Successful businesses, which are not a monopoly or government sponsored in some way, usually understand this. 4) I would like to hope I understand (there are those that may disagree with me) that the College Textbook market is rapidly evolving, principally due to: 1)the internet 2)rising textbook prices 3)rising tuition costs and 4)the way students are learning.
Having prefaced my remarks, I have few things to say:
I am not a rich man (at least by my standards) and neither are most of the students who attend the College I service: My annual salary is in the low 50's, which I think is reasonable considering I am the owner. I work about 50 hours a week outside of Fall and Spring Buying season (where I work 70 hours per week).
I know textbooks are typically very expensive. Bookstore profit margins on textbooks typically range from 20 to 25%. So to the extent that we sell books does in some way make us "part of the problem." We do try to get our hands on as many books as we can, because they cost us less and we can sell them for less. If a book is being used again for a class and it's not moving into a new edition we'll usually pay the student 1/2 our selling price for the book. This is an industry standard practice, so I don't really know where the whole "pennies on the dollar thing comes from."
Maybe the disenchanted community college instructor is referring to scenarios where students are selling back books that aren't being used again. These books are sold to wholesalers, who then pay us what we paid the student for the book (typically 5 to 35% of the new value of the books, depending on a variety of factors) plus a 20% commission. These books then sit in a massive warehouse, until a store like ours calls them to buy the book and sell in in their store, where it gets sold again as a used book. Because publishers cannot, for the most part, do EULAs with their new books, they understandably hate this practice and try to (my opinion) push out new editions as fast as they can get away with.
It's also possible the student sold back the book at a wholesale price and then *after the students sold them* we get an order for the book to be used. We encourage faculty to submit orders early because it allows us to buy back more books at 1/2 sale value and it allows us to get more used copies, but like the saying goes: you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink....
Our store (like almost all others) sells books according to what the faculty tell us to sell and what kind of book it is (e.g., required, recommended or optional). This doesn't always mean the book actually gets used or is really needed for the class (as any sophomore or senior will tell you) but it is *what we were told to list the book as* by an instructor or department chair. We find the books that sell the best meet one of more of
That is sad to hear, but believable. I wonder how other, smaller, internet auction houses deal with "designer bullies" who want to quash re-selling of their merchandise?
what I meant to also say is that if eBay takes down an item *under the premise of VeRO* and eBay is then shown the item does not violate their VeRO policy, then the seller should have the right to have it reposted without having to pay any extra fees.
eBay, as a private internet auction house, is free to refuse to sell whatever they like, but if they engage in a pattern of discriminatory refusals to post certain auctions (e.g. because certain big companies complain about individuals who happen to be re-selling their stuff), then eBay might have some explaining to do.
Causal reselling of any tangible goods on eBay, (unless expressly illegal, like prescription medication, unfertilized human eggs and human Kidneys) is *not* a VeRO violation.
The page clearly states that: "eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program works to ensure that item listings do not infringe upon the copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights of third parties. VeRO Program participants have the ability to identify and request removal of allegedly infringing items and materials."
Re-selling authentic Foakley sunglasses that you own (as compared to attempting to sell cheap knock-offs as the real thing) on the internet (and even on eBay) is not illegal. If eBay is refusing to allow them to be listed even after the owner can prove they have the right to re-sell (e.g. they have ownership of an authentic pair), then eBay could be in some trouble. Now if I am regularly re-selling authentic Foakley sunglasses on eBay and I'm not an authorized vendor, that could be another matter, but a casual sale of tangible goods does not meet VeRO criteria.
Furthermore, if eBay then re-lists the withdrawn item and Foakley issues another VeRO takedown, they could have some explaining to do as well.
Thank you for taking the time to reply and your insight on the process. I nevertheless remain skeptical about the ability to affect change in consideration of how congress, and the rest of the world, continues to pass malformed copyright legislation. I do continue to vote according to my feelings on their records in office and haven't missed a federal election - ever.
Regarding SCOTUS' decisions on copyright law and intellectual property: a statement of understanding is one thing, but their actual decisions on cases can be quite another. Remember, this is the court that over-ruled the U.S. Patent Office and allowed patents on genome sequences: not just the inventions that can and will spring from them, but the actual sequences themselves.
I understand your point on mixed rulings overall (battles in the war, if you will), but I respectfully disagree on your assertion of how the overall "War" is progressing; too many important *big* decisions are being lost and too many greedy, stupid laws continue to be passed.
The *consumer* public is less and less keeping keeping this end of the "deal" anymore, as copyright infringement occurs more often (i.e. "piracy") and there is an increasingly prevalent belief (rightly or wrongly) that music, for example, should be free.
This is in no small part due to the ridiculous copyright laws and increasingly draconian methods of enforcing them.
Here, however, I think the goal is not scalping the "consumer public" but rather smaller "consumer businesses" and "consumer institutions", like, for example, schools.
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
There is a battle being waged by between mega-corporations and their front-men/institutions against the general public to redefine the issue solely as one of property, since we all know stealing is wrong. SCOTUS has already ruled that insanely long copyright laws are stupid but nonetheless legal. This kind of ridiculous proposition by the copyright axis of evil, as I see it, amounts to a further example of a battle we are losing (on the legal front) every day. Our only hope of success is to let the economy sort it out or a fundamental see change in how intellectual property is defined and defended.
Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. I figured you were right, but I was very curious of the details.
I am a believer on old Republican values (minimalist gov't, fiscal restraint and family values - that's "values" not preaching), but as of the 80's and onward they, as a national party and presidents in particular, seem to preach one thing and practice the opposite. Of course this is not universally true, nor do I believe the democrats are free of evil, but I've felt compelled, on the whole, to vote democrat because of (in order of importance)
a) debt spending and tax equity b) civil liberties c) constitutional interpretation (i.e. Judges) d) environmental concerns e) separation of church and state
I am a registered Democrat. I am not a fan of the Republican Party here in Ohio or at the national level. Nevertheless, when I see a story on/. with the tag of "republicansarefuckingfascists" I do think it serves only to add fuel to the fire that makes politics in the United States even more divisive than it already is.
Just post the story and let the readers decide.
Everyone knows/. has a particular political and ideological bent and so certain story topics are to be expected here (reader, know thine author). Still, some restraint on the part of the submitter and/. is not an unreasonable expectation.
As soon as Google went public, their stated policy of "don't be evil" began its slow but steady erosion. This is just one more relatively small example of it. Someday Google may turn out to be quite nasty indeed. Time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.
I agree with you. IMO, the closest analogy to a postcard email would be one where the entire message of email content was in the title bar only.
IMO, the average person has the expectation of privacy with email, so that when Mrs. Wilson sends a love letter by email to her Hubby while he is away, she knows any perverts along the way won't be be reading it without risk/liability for doing so.
Whether this is law or not is another matter, but I believe it is a social norm, in any event. And Laws often follow from them.
Ummm, Just who do you think Santa works for anyway? It stands to reason (and faith?) that given this, Santa would have more than a few tricks up his sleeve...
Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).
Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).
Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):
1) ACLU 2) EFF 3) Judicial Watch 4) MoveOn.org 5) Amnesty International 6) Union of Concerned Scientists
The list goes on and on and on. I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.
Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).
In another 2 to 4 years SCOTUS will *probably* overturn this version of the bill, should it become law, just like they did in the Hamdi case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi
I only say "probably" because now we have Alito and Roberts instead of O'Connor and Rehnquist, with Alito being decidedly more conservative than the swing vote that was O'Connor.
Then, if this happens, we'll be right back where we started, with two changes: 1) Bush will no longer be in office. 2) Likely, the House or Senate will be in Democrat majority.
The fact that the House, Senate and Presidency have been in fairly consistent GOP control since 2000 has made for some pretty lopsided legislation and judicial appointments, with this bill being just one more sorry example.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally find it hard to believe that a Best Buy manager would say anyone was "sh** out of luck." It makes me doubt the objectivity of the article and the opinions in it.
Anyone with some creativity, a shrink-wrapping machine and an axe to grind could PR-bomb Best Buy or any other vendor they don't like. This is particularly true with technology products, since they often cost a lot and take up a small amount of space (cell phones, games, movies, the list goes on and on).
I'm not saying someone didn't get duped or treated unfairly, but as a Manager I know when someone loses their temper I have a harder time believing their story and/or wanting to help them (all other things being equal, that is).
From my experience and observation on both sides of the counter, civility and politeness are appropriate 99.5% of the time. This does not mean one has to be a carpet and get walked on. It does mean we can be assertive, articulate, persistent and *still* be polite; it very often yields better results. At the very least it allows one to maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that almost always pays off in the long run.
I'm surprised this got modded to "+5 informative" without a link or citation.
It's "interesting" without verification and would be "informative" with it.
Maybe so, but I just bought one for my wife's 40th birthday. She loves it and I love it. I tried to convince her into a PS3 instead (the graphics! the Blu-ray player!) she said the Wii was simply more *fun*, and, after having played it for a few nights, I have to say I agree with her (I'm not 40 yet, but will be soon). Furthermore I could not find one anywhere; I had to buy one off eBay for $50.00 above retail, and X-mas is still months away.
My Co-worker/co-manager is female and she loves it, too. One of my female employees also thinks it's great.
From what I have seen, women love this console because it is more fun and more family friendly. That is saying a lot and it appears that the marketplace has spoken.
Perhaps you should reconsider your assertion that the GP's stats are incorrect.
Agreed. Even more so, Facts don't care at all. They simply are.
However, people can and do argue about what "facts" are, even to the point of trying to re-invent them by new interpretations of well established and almost completely incontrovertible data to make a new "fact," despite such interpretations not being supported by the scientific method they are supposed to espouse. This is a lot of what creationism in its new clothing (intelligent design) is trying to do.
(sarcasm)
And that's a fact.
(/sarcasm)
I have to say I agree with the basic premise about spending a fortune on audio, but spending a chunk can sometimes be helpful depending on what you are buying. I moved from a $200.00 pair of headphones in 1997 to a $250 pair from the same maker (Sennheiser) in 2006. the new pair was "OK." so I returned them. After 2 months of poking around and reading reviews (some were informative and some not so) and looking at specifications I opted for Grado GS1000's instead. They cost $950, but the sound was much better. Some of the improvement was apparent right away, but the rest became more noticeable after a day or two: I heard subtle details and clarity I'd missed before (on the same equipment, mind you). I wanted to be able to listen to tunes directly on my MP3 player and Laptop without any bulky amps.
I think headphones generally are in a different camp than cables in that you get what you pay for, as long as you know what kind of listening experience you want. But as you spend more and more, the less improvement you get for your money (at least with headphones, but this is likely true with many other things as well), so you have to really want the uber-quality stuff if you're not made of money. Those headphones are the most expensive audio equipment I own: I have no fancy CD players, stereos, amps, speakers or cables, but I do have a pair of really good headphones.
Oh, and I got them from the same company, BTW: http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/grado-gs-1000.php
My opinion, FWIW.
Thank you for the links.
However, it's worth noting that Obama wasn't around to vote for either the "Patriot Act" or the Iraq war resolution, since he joined the U.S. Senate in 2004.
While I can't say with 100% certainty that he would have voted against the patriot act (only Feingold did at the time), IMO there's a real chance he would have, given his stance on various social and civil rights issues. He certainly doesn't pass on opportunities to remind people of his opposition to the Iraq war from the start (particularly to distinguish himself against Sen. Clinton).
"There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD,"
If these are facts, how about some citations and references? Credible sources would make this assertion even more interesting.
"For something to be copyrighted, it has to be creative. That means most information can not be copyrighted."
I'd be willing to bet some cash that is *not* correct. AFAIK, all it takes for a work to be copyrighted is a)to create information or b)take previously existing information (including that gathered from a free source or sources) and organize it in a new form/fashion that can be useful.
For example: Weather reports from the Gov't (unless classified) are in the public domain. But if I organize weather reports in L.A. according to particular smog patterns on ozone action days inside of a certain temperature range that coincide with certain asthma problems and sell that information to hospitals, I'd bet that is copyright eligible material, as long as the new collection of data is actually new (i.e. no prior art).
Am I right or wrong about this assumption? (and yes, I know how that word breaks down...)
"Could this be an effective argument against the proliferation of cameras or will politicians simply ignore the facts and press ahead?"
hm...
Well, like Archie Bunker said: "Stop confusing me with facts!"
Come on people: don't you see this is for your protection against Terrorists?
Also, please think of the children!
I think someone is seriously angry here. Angry, as in: not having a full understanding of what's really going on at College Bookstores and making us out as Public Enemy Number One.
As the owner of a small, privately owned (as in by me) College Bookstore (annual gross sales around $550,000/year) There are a few things I would like to point out. Before I do, let me insert the following caveats:
1) The principles upon which I choose to run my store are not necessarily how all bookstores do so (let alone those in my category of "small" and "privately owned"). Still, my comments are probably a good a place as any to start forming an understanding of College Bookstore practices.
2) I do actually care about customer service. However, I may not necessarily define the student who walks into the store with the intent of buying all his/her books elsewhere as a customer.
3) I do understand that owning a business and having it be successful in the long run is as much about relationship building (with customers and the institutions we serve) as it is about economic viability. Successful businesses, which are not a monopoly or government sponsored in some way, usually understand this.
4) I would like to hope I understand (there are those that may disagree with me) that the College Textbook market is rapidly evolving, principally due to: 1)the internet 2)rising textbook prices 3)rising tuition costs and 4)the way students are learning.
Having prefaced my remarks, I have few things to say:
I am not a rich man (at least by my standards) and neither are most of the students who attend the College I service: My annual salary is in the low 50's, which I think is reasonable considering I am the owner. I work about 50 hours a week outside of Fall and Spring Buying season (where I work 70 hours per week).
I know textbooks are typically very expensive. Bookstore profit margins on textbooks typically range from 20 to 25%. So to the extent that we sell books does in some way make us "part of the problem." We do try to get our hands on as many books as we can, because they cost us less and we can sell them for less. If a book is being used again for a class and it's not moving into a new edition we'll usually pay the student 1/2 our selling price for the book. This is an industry standard practice, so I don't really know where the whole "pennies on the dollar thing comes from."
Maybe the disenchanted community college instructor is referring to scenarios where students are selling back books that aren't being used again. These books are sold to wholesalers, who then pay us what we paid the student for the book (typically 5 to 35% of the new value of the books, depending on a variety of factors) plus a 20% commission. These books then sit in a massive warehouse, until a store like ours calls them to buy the book and sell in in their store, where it gets sold again as a used book. Because publishers cannot, for the most part, do EULAs with their new books, they understandably hate this practice and try to (my opinion) push out new editions as fast as they can get away with.
It's also possible the student sold back the book at a wholesale price and then *after the students sold them* we get an order for the book to be used. We encourage faculty to submit orders early because it allows us to buy back more books at 1/2 sale value and it allows us to get more used copies, but like the saying goes: you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink....
Our store (like almost all others) sells books according to what the faculty tell us to sell and what kind of book it is (e.g., required, recommended or optional). This doesn't always mean the book actually gets used or is really needed for the class (as any sophomore or senior will tell you) but it is *what we were told to list the book as* by an instructor or department chair. We find the books that sell the best meet one of more of
That is sad to hear, but believable. I wonder how other, smaller, internet auction houses deal with "designer bullies" who want to quash re-selling of their merchandise?
with regards to my previous statement:
what I meant to also say is that if eBay takes down an item *under the premise of VeRO* and eBay is then shown the item does not violate their VeRO policy, then the seller should have the right to have it reposted without having to pay any extra fees.
eBay, as a private internet auction house, is free to refuse to sell whatever they like, but if they engage in a pattern of discriminatory refusals to post certain auctions (e.g. because certain big companies complain about individuals who happen to be re-selling their stuff), then eBay might have some explaining to do.
Your statement is incorrect.
Causal reselling of any tangible goods on eBay, (unless expressly illegal, like prescription medication, unfertilized human eggs and human Kidneys) is *not* a VeRO violation.
From eBay's website: http://pages.ebay.in/help/confidence/programs-vero.html
The page clearly states that: "eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program works to ensure that item listings do not infringe upon the copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights of third parties. VeRO Program participants have the ability to identify and request removal of allegedly infringing items and materials."
Re-selling authentic Foakley sunglasses that you own (as compared to attempting to sell cheap knock-offs as the real thing) on the internet (and even on eBay) is not illegal. If eBay is refusing to allow them to be listed even after the owner can prove they have the right to re-sell (e.g. they have ownership of an authentic pair), then eBay could be in some trouble. Now if I am regularly re-selling authentic Foakley sunglasses on eBay and I'm not an authorized vendor, that could be another matter, but a casual sale of tangible goods does not meet VeRO criteria.
Furthermore, if eBay then re-lists the withdrawn item and Foakley issues another VeRO takedown, they could have some explaining to do as well.
Thank you for taking the time to reply and your insight on the process. I nevertheless remain skeptical about the ability to affect change in consideration of how congress, and the rest of the world, continues to pass malformed copyright legislation. I do continue to vote according to my feelings on their records in office and haven't missed a federal election - ever.
Regarding SCOTUS' decisions on copyright law and intellectual property: a statement of understanding is one thing, but their actual decisions on cases can be quite another. Remember, this is the court that over-ruled the U.S. Patent Office and allowed patents on genome sequences: not just the inventions that can and will spring from them, but the actual sequences themselves.
I understand your point on mixed rulings overall (battles in the war, if you will), but I respectfully disagree on your assertion of how the overall "War" is progressing; too many important *big* decisions are being lost and too many greedy, stupid laws continue to be passed.
The *consumer* public is less and less keeping keeping this end of the "deal" anymore, as copyright infringement occurs more often (i.e. "piracy") and there is an increasingly prevalent belief (rightly or wrongly) that music, for example, should be free.
This is in no small part due to the ridiculous copyright laws and increasingly draconian methods of enforcing them.
Here, however, I think the goal is not scalping the "consumer public" but rather smaller "consumer businesses" and "consumer institutions", like, for example, schools.
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
There is a battle being waged by between mega-corporations and their front-men/institutions against the general public to redefine the issue solely as one of property, since we all know stealing is wrong. SCOTUS has already ruled that insanely long copyright laws are stupid but nonetheless legal. This kind of ridiculous proposition by the copyright axis of evil, as I see it, amounts to a further example of a battle we are losing (on the legal front) every day. Our only hope of success is to let the economy sort it out or a fundamental see change in how intellectual property is defined and defended.
Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. I figured you were right, but I was very curious of the details.
I am a believer on old Republican values (minimalist gov't, fiscal restraint and family values - that's "values" not preaching), but as of the 80's and onward they, as a national party and presidents in particular, seem to preach one thing and practice the opposite. Of course this is not universally true, nor do I believe the democrats are free of evil, but I've felt compelled, on the whole, to vote democrat because of (in order of importance)
a) debt spending and tax equity
b) civil liberties
c) constitutional interpretation (i.e. Judges)
d) environmental concerns
e) separation of church and state
That's an interesting statistic you assert; it would be more interesting with proof.
FWIW I believe you, but citations and references will help to convince the doubtful yet open-minded.
someone on /. just removed that highly inappropriate tag. thank you.
I am a registered Democrat. I am not a fan of the Republican Party here in Ohio or at the national level. Nevertheless, when I see a story on /. with the tag of "republicansarefuckingfascists" I do think it serves only to add fuel to the fire that makes politics in the United States even more divisive than it already is.
/. has a particular political and ideological bent and so certain story topics are to be expected here (reader, know thine author). Still, some restraint on the part of the submitter and /. is not an unreasonable expectation.
Just post the story and let the readers decide.
Everyone knows
Be the change you want the world to become.
As soon as Google went public, their stated policy of "don't be evil" began its slow but steady erosion. This is just one more relatively small example of it. Someday Google may turn out to be quite nasty indeed. Time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.
I agree with you. IMO, the closest analogy to a postcard email would be one where the entire message of email content was in the title bar only.
IMO, the average person has the expectation of privacy with email, so that when Mrs. Wilson sends a love letter by email to her Hubby while he is away, she knows any perverts along the way won't be be reading it without risk/liability for doing so.
Whether this is law or not is another matter, but I believe it is a social norm, in any event. And Laws often follow from them.
It's nice to see that, every once in a while, companies see the value of an honest opinion having *some* parity with the advertising dollar.
maybe other will follow this positive example, from time to time.
Ummm, Just who do you think Santa works for anyway? It stands to reason (and faith?) that given this, Santa would have more than a few tricks up his sleeve...
Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).
Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).
Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):
1) ACLU
2) EFF
3) Judicial Watch
4) MoveOn.org
5) Amnesty International
6) Union of Concerned Scientists
The list goes on and on and on.
I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.
Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).
In another 2 to 4 years SCOTUS will *probably* overturn this version of the bill, should it become law, just like they did in the Hamdi case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi
I only say "probably" because now we have Alito and Roberts instead of O'Connor and Rehnquist, with Alito being decidedly more conservative than the swing vote that was O'Connor.
Then, if this happens, we'll be right back where we started, with two changes:
1) Bush will no longer be in office.
2) Likely, the House or Senate will be in Democrat majority.
The fact that the House, Senate and Presidency have been in fairly consistent GOP control since 2000 has made for some pretty lopsided legislation and judicial appointments, with this bill being just one more sorry example.
Hopefully this will change on Nov 7th, but I'm not holding my breath; it is said that in life we should *Hope* for the best and *Prepare* for the worst. It's just too bad we've been doing so much preparing for 6 years straight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianlloyd/42959310/
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html