I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit
Sure...and how much money did they have to spend to make Miley into an OMG MUST HAVE!!!!1!1!! "talent"?
Looking around, I don't see a lot of future Led Zepellins, Doors, Pink Floyds or around...there's an overwhelming amount of money wasted in foisting crap on us, but it's easier (and therefore cheaper) to manufacture an image than to find, nuture & promote a legit talent.
This system is corrupt and broken, & it does rape the artists, but it *would* require significant investment by the labels even if were run honestly.
Absolutely right, but judging by the OP, I would assume that fighting the good fight, is not what he's looking for...One can also argue that the act of moving to a sufficiently friendlier nation (assuming one exists) is a valid way of making yourself heard; in commerce it's called "taking your business elsewhere." Aside from arguments about governments being corrupted by commercial interests, government *is* still a business and enough people leaving for friendlier countries hurts the tax base needed for whichever level of government.
Yeah, unless you mean employers, "They" are usually the reason for considering emigration. I don't want to be on anyone's radar screen except for times and purposes of my choosing.
Think of it in terms of two cars colliding head-on, literally on a planetary scale: the planetary crust that seems like solid rock to you on the human scale is more like the crumple zone of a car's frame. When the planets collide, they would buckle and fuse together. In the example of 2 cars colliding, there would likely be some rebound and the cars would come to rest a few feet apart (the cars' respective centres of gravity are insignificant compared to the forces of friction on the pavement). On the planetary scale, what's left of the planets' respective centres of gravity would continue to pull & keep them together (with a relatively small percentage of debris lost, most of that would then be recaptured into orbit for the immediate future).
The police are acted in good faith, because they assumed the judge would act in good faith
No. The police acted in good faith, period even if the judge then signed the warrant negligently or maliciously. The judge's decision to sign (or not) the warrant is then based on the facts, as asserted in the warrant application. If the judge felt is was insufficient cause and/or the police were acting maliciously, he would have denied the warrant.
The argument, at face value, is that the police and the judge acted in separate instances of good faith. On that assumption, the police could not have been acting in bad faith because the judge would have shot them down. That leaves the possibilities of the police acting in good faith but the judge acting maliciously because he *should* have known to shoot down the warrant application *or* the police and judge acting in bad faith separately or in concert. There is no suggestion so far that any party acted in bad faith.
As to your assertion that the logic is circular: well maybe, if that's where due process ended. Instead, a higher court squashed the warrant, and therefore anything discovered as a result of the search. When similar situations happened often enough that the lower courts judges (and, by trickle down effect, the police) should be *expected* to know that their warrants will be overturned, *then* you have your opening for a civil lawsuit based on negligent/malicious prosecution.
If/. is any accurate representation of the current state of legal affairs, one would argue that case law is trending in favour of the shoddy warrants, if only due to the technical ignorance of the courts.
Forging new law and/or correcting bad applications/interpretations of existing laws is ugly, messy business, but it's the best system we've got, since not everything can go straight to the Supreme Court.
no law degree here, either, but I assume a civil suit would be laughed out of court. The police officers acted in good faith because a judge signed their warrant, and, presumably, the judge the signed the warrant in a good faith belief that a) the details provided by the police were truthful, and b) the details provided by the police were sufficient to justify a warrant
The fact that a higher court struck it down is proof of "the system works" and there is no case unless you can prove maliciousness on behalf of the judge (alone or in collusion with the police). Maliciousness *solely* on the part of the police would never fly since the judge signed off on the warrant.
To all those who bitch about the potential hardware/software glitches causing 20-car pileups when your engine power gets cut: the same argument could be applied to power steering, brakes, blinkers, etc.
Hell, what if my radio is defective and changing stations shorts out my car's entire electrical system so I grind to a halt on the freeway with an 18-wheeler barrelling up behind me?
Using (or not) various systems in our vehicles carry theoretical risks and we don't lose sleep over them, speed limiters are no different and completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not even theoretically flawless limiter is a good idea
Comedy group The Frantics from a quick little ditty called Boot To The Head. Believe it comes from a Canadian sketch show called Four On The Floor. Not Sure about that, only have the CD (also called Boot To The Head). Funniest comedy CD I've ever heard
seriously? man-dog? I always thought it was an oddly weak name that was a riff on "Chew" & "Tobacco" At least the original french translators thought so since his name is "Chictabac," literally "ChewTobacco"
He looks more like the missing link or Bigfoot than he does a dog...
personally, I think we're not alone in the universe, but I doubt we've been found, and if we have, we wouldn't know about it; as mentioned above they'd be too advanced to be detected.
But for argument's sake, the tourist theory would be a possibility: the many advance scouts/scientists/explorers, etc. wouldn't be detectable unless they chose to be seen, presumably in a manner too large to cover up.
But what if that first, cautious/responsible wave is finished/bored with us? Now we're at the mercy of their equivalent of hick tourists; the kind that go to Paris, Rome, etc. and bitch about not finding a McDonalds or 7-11. How good are their village-idiots-on-vacation going to be at staying hidden from us?
then you're seriously missing the point: relatively isolated, relatively one-off event like a Pinatubo brings changes and then nature reasserts an equilibrium, unless the event is of the scale that killed the dinosaurs. That event overwhelmed nature's ability to reassert equilibrium to the system; at least in time to do the dinosaurs any good.
The big difference here is that, man burning fossil fuels is a continuous event. It continuously threatens to tip the scales into (relatively) permananent change. Whether it takes a decade or a generation or a century or an eon is not the point.
Our fuel burning habits may not be significant enough to ruin the environmental equilibrium (more or less the climate as we are accustomed to it); maybe our habits will even tip the scales enough to bring a better status quo (assuming the transition is survivable), but maybe our habits will scorch the earth or flood the earth or freeze the earth or poison the earth or whatever.
The point is that we are disrupting the equilibrium with no grasp of the consequences, no way to stop the freight train if it's heading down the wrong track, or no guarantee we can even know in time what a proper course of action should be.
Say it with me everybody: We only have one Earth, better be damn sure we don't fuck it up.
I'm not really buying the whole "mankind burning oil caused this" hypothesis
To paraphrase and expand on some earlier comments:
1)Assume a world w/o man and his fossil fuels
2)Assume (for the sake of illustration) that volcanic activity is relatively constant and therefore statistical background noise except for once a century when a Mt. Pinatubo erupts
3)Assume (again, for sake of illustration) that the significant effects of a Pinatubo event last 5 years
Statistically 95% of the time, climate is "normal" the other 5% is something to endure and its effects are almost forgotten by the time the next event rolls around.
Now reintroduce mankind, burning fossil fuels on a continuous basis, the effects of which would be felt 100-1000 more years if man left the planet tomorrow. The amount of pollutants is still increasing as China, India et al. join the club and there's no timeline for a decrease let alone a return to "normal" levels.
This is theoretically equivalent to an everincreasing number of Pinatubo events that never stop happening once they start
If we levelled out consumption now it would take 100-1000 years just for nature to find an equilibrium. Maybe the world climate improves; maybe it worsens, but is tolerable; but maybe, just maybe, it will be *completely unsustainable to human life*...maybe we should think things through a little more first? We can always burn stuff later if it turns out to be a good idea, but at least we know we can survive as we are now, why change the rules of the game if we can't predict the outcome?
It's a simple concept: we're a nation of exporters. Oil, gas, wheat, lumber, various minerals, fuzzy bunny slippers...you might not be able to afford to stop doing business with us altogether, but an embargo on any particular commodity under the guise of fair trade/national security/cultural integrity/my-horoscope-said-so will likely hurt us more than it hurts you
Remember americans not buying french products like a good french wine and making asses themselves by only eating "freedom fries"? Don't know if that particular stupidity hurt the french economy, but the intent was certainly there...did I mention the french were right, there were no WMD? Oh, wait, Bush & co already knew that...At the very least, Britain knew that WMD paranoia was just that: paranoia, but they played along while america belittled the french...like I said, most countries are probably wondering when it's their turn to "benefit" from american friendship and support...and it makes us nervous...you're the best friend that we don't leave alone with our 16 y/o daughter...
I think I speak for a lot of people in a lot of countries when I say my problem is that I wonder when it's our turn, if not by military means then by economic means. There's an awful lot of gas and oil up here in Canada...
don't be pedantic. does anyone believe that the 2 formats will split the market or that they'll both go the way of laserdiscs and DVDs will continue to reign supreme? no? then you have a duopoly with HD-DVD attempting to create a monopoly for itself.
consider the screams if the article was about microsoft paying off intel to quit making chips for Apple. sure apple still has alternatives, but you'd hear the anti-microsoft screams on mars.
my original point remains: is this legal and if not, what if hd-dvd was innocent?
if they were paid to support one technology over another, isn't that illegal, anti-competitive and/or monopolistic behaviour by the HD-DVD consortium? If so, would it be illegal if the consortium were innocent but the payoff came from some backer who stands to gain from HD-DVD beating out Blu-Ray?
making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal
Right. As soon as they solve that whole spam problem and those personal data theft issues, then i'll consider not being able to change addresses at will
bottom line: no method of birth control is foolproof and there's no way to equip the mission to handle pregnancies. only way to be sure: all-male or all-female crews...give me an all-female crew and add me to the list of posters who advocate financing the mission through porn-cam rights...
But if you're going to buy from Amazon (for instance), you're going to have to suck it up and accept their cookies to use the shopping cart.
Exactly. I agree to use their cookies to enable the shopping cart. I'll even accept that the cookies then allow Amazon to make better suggestions for the next book I purchase. That does not mean I agree to allow someone else to profile me because Amazon sold the information, in specific or in aggregate.
Don't patronise the website? Well damn, I'd have to stop using the internet because it's such a prevalent condition, and, as my original questions illustrate, even informed consumers don't have reasonably easy options. *That's* why it should be legislated, consumers don't have another viable option.
I set my browser to "Ask me everytime" On rare occasions, I need to allow cookies that I'd previously blocked. Problem is that my block list is hundreds deep and the names aren't always obvious. How do I find the one cookie permission I need to reset, short of erasing all permissions and starting over again?
Along those lines, when I do allow cookies to keep me logged into a website, for example, how do I tell which cookies from that website are needed to keep me logged in and which ones are unnecessary (trial-and-error often creates the previous problem)?
Slashdot Mirror
I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit
Sure...and how much money did they have to spend to make Miley into an OMG MUST HAVE!!!!1!1!! "talent"? Looking around, I don't see a lot of future Led Zepellins, Doors, Pink Floyds or around...there's an overwhelming amount of money wasted in foisting crap on us, but it's easier (and therefore cheaper) to manufacture an image than to find, nuture & promote a legit talent. This system is corrupt and broken, & it does rape the artists, but it *would* require significant investment by the labels even if were run honestly.
Absolutely right, but judging by the OP, I would assume that fighting the good fight, is not what he's looking for...One can also argue that the act of moving to a sufficiently friendlier nation (assuming one exists) is a valid way of making yourself heard; in commerce it's called "taking your business elsewhere." Aside from arguments about governments being corrupted by commercial interests, government *is* still a business and enough people leaving for friendlier countries hurts the tax base needed for whichever level of government.
As a bonus, they'll know all about you.
Yeah, unless you mean employers, "They" are usually the reason for considering emigration. I don't want to be on anyone's radar screen except for times and purposes of my choosing.
Think of it in terms of two cars colliding head-on, literally on a planetary scale: the planetary crust that seems like solid rock to you on the human scale is more like the crumple zone of a car's frame. When the planets collide, they would buckle and fuse together. In the example of 2 cars colliding, there would likely be some rebound and the cars would come to rest a few feet apart (the cars' respective centres of gravity are insignificant compared to the forces of friction on the pavement). On the planetary scale, what's left of the planets' respective centres of gravity would continue to pull & keep them together (with a relatively small percentage of debris lost, most of that would then be recaptured into orbit for the immediate future).
The police are acted in good faith, because they assumed the judge would act in good faith
/. is any accurate representation of the current state of legal affairs, one would argue that case law is trending in favour of the shoddy warrants, if only due to the technical ignorance of the courts.
No. The police acted in good faith, period even if the judge then signed the warrant negligently or maliciously. The judge's decision to sign (or not) the warrant is then based on the facts, as asserted in the warrant application. If the judge felt is was insufficient cause and/or the police were acting maliciously, he would have denied the warrant.
The argument, at face value, is that the police and the judge acted in separate instances of good faith. On that assumption, the police could not have been acting in bad faith because the judge would have shot them down. That leaves the possibilities of the police acting in good faith but the judge acting maliciously because he *should* have known to shoot down the warrant application *or* the police and judge acting in bad faith separately or in concert. There is no suggestion so far that any party acted in bad faith.
As to your assertion that the logic is circular: well maybe, if that's where due process ended. Instead, a higher court squashed the warrant, and therefore anything discovered as a result of the search. When similar situations happened often enough that the lower courts judges (and, by trickle down effect, the police) should be *expected* to know that their warrants will be overturned, *then* you have your opening for a civil lawsuit based on negligent/malicious prosecution.
If
Forging new law and/or correcting bad applications/interpretations of existing laws is ugly, messy business, but it's the best system we've got, since not everything can go straight to the Supreme Court.
no law degree here, either, but I assume a civil suit would be laughed out of court. The police officers acted in good faith because a judge signed their warrant, and, presumably, the judge the signed the warrant in a good faith belief that a) the details provided by the police were truthful, and b) the details provided by the police were sufficient to justify a warrant
The fact that a higher court struck it down is proof of "the system works" and there is no case unless you can prove maliciousness on behalf of the judge (alone or in collusion with the police). Maliciousness *solely* on the part of the police would never fly since the judge signed off on the warrant.
To all those who bitch about the potential hardware/software glitches causing 20-car pileups when your engine power gets cut: the same argument could be applied to power steering, brakes, blinkers, etc.
Hell, what if my radio is defective and changing stations shorts out my car's entire electrical system so I grind to a halt on the freeway with an 18-wheeler barrelling up behind me?
Using (or not) various systems in our vehicles carry theoretical risks and we don't lose sleep over them, speed limiters are no different and completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not even theoretically flawless limiter is a good idea
Comedy group The Frantics from a quick little ditty called Boot To The Head. Believe it comes from a Canadian sketch show called Four On The Floor. Not Sure about that, only have the CD (also called Boot To The Head). Funniest comedy CD I've ever heard
seriously? man-dog? I always thought it was an oddly weak name that was a riff on "Chew" & "Tobacco" At least the original french translators thought so since his name is "Chictabac," literally "ChewTobacco"
He looks more like the missing link or Bigfoot than he does a dog...
the fortune at the bottom of my page reads: "What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock"
which is just the tip of the iceberg of what could possibly be wrong about these powers...
"Is that a tracking unit under your dress or are you just happy to see me?"
Me, I'm not in the habit of seeking out women who have bulges under their dresses...
personally, I think we're not alone in the universe, but I doubt we've been found, and if we have, we wouldn't know about it; as mentioned above they'd be too advanced to be detected.
But for argument's sake, the tourist theory would be a possibility: the many advance scouts/scientists/explorers, etc. wouldn't be detectable unless they chose to be seen, presumably in a manner too large to cover up.
But what if that first, cautious/responsible wave is finished/bored with us? Now we're at the mercy of their equivalent of hick tourists; the kind that go to Paris, Rome, etc. and bitch about not finding a McDonalds or 7-11. How good are their village-idiots-on-vacation going to be at staying hidden from us?
You forgot http://www.CowboyNeal.com
then you're seriously missing the point: relatively isolated, relatively one-off event like a Pinatubo brings changes and then nature reasserts an equilibrium, unless the event is of the scale that killed the dinosaurs. That event overwhelmed nature's ability to reassert equilibrium to the system; at least in time to do the dinosaurs any good.
The big difference here is that, man burning fossil fuels is a continuous event. It continuously threatens to tip the scales into (relatively) permananent change. Whether it takes a decade or a generation or a century or an eon is not the point.
Our fuel burning habits may not be significant enough to ruin the environmental equilibrium (more or less the climate as we are accustomed to it); maybe our habits will even tip the scales enough to bring a better status quo (assuming the transition is survivable), but maybe our habits will scorch the earth or flood the earth or freeze the earth or poison the earth or whatever.
The point is that we are disrupting the equilibrium with no grasp of the consequences, no way to stop the freight train if it's heading down the wrong track, or no guarantee we can even know in time what a proper course of action should be.
Say it with me everybody: We only have one Earth, better be damn sure we don't fuck it up.
I'm not really buying the whole "mankind burning oil caused this" hypothesis
To paraphrase and expand on some earlier comments:
1)Assume a world w/o man and his fossil fuels
2)Assume (for the sake of illustration) that volcanic activity is relatively constant and therefore statistical background noise except for once a century when a Mt. Pinatubo erupts
3)Assume (again, for sake of illustration) that the significant effects of a Pinatubo event last 5 years
Statistically 95% of the time, climate is "normal" the other 5% is something to endure and its effects are almost forgotten by the time the next event rolls around.
Now reintroduce mankind, burning fossil fuels on a continuous basis, the effects of which would be felt 100-1000 more years if man left the planet tomorrow. The amount of pollutants is still increasing as China, India et al. join the club and there's no timeline for a decrease let alone a return to "normal" levels.
This is theoretically equivalent to an everincreasing number of Pinatubo events that never stop happening once they start
If we levelled out consumption now it would take 100-1000 years just for nature to find an equilibrium. Maybe the world climate improves; maybe it worsens, but is tolerable; but maybe, just maybe, it will be *completely unsustainable to human life*...maybe we should think things through a little more first?
We can always burn stuff later if it turns out to be a good idea, but at least we know we can survive as we are now, why change the rules of the game if we can't predict the outcome?
It's a simple concept: we're a nation of exporters. Oil, gas, wheat, lumber, various minerals, fuzzy bunny slippers...you might not be able to afford to stop doing business with us altogether, but an embargo on any particular commodity under the guise of fair trade/national security/cultural integrity/my-horoscope-said-so will likely hurt us more than it hurts you
Remember americans not buying french products like a good french wine and making asses themselves by only eating "freedom fries"? Don't know if that particular stupidity hurt the french economy, but the intent was certainly there...did I mention the french were right, there were no WMD? Oh, wait, Bush & co already knew that...At the very least, Britain knew that WMD paranoia was just that: paranoia, but they played along while america belittled the french...like I said, most countries are probably wondering when it's their turn to "benefit" from american friendship and support...and it makes us nervous...you're the best friend that we don't leave alone with our 16 y/o daughter...
I think I speak for a lot of people in a lot of countries when I say my problem is that I wonder when it's our turn, if not by military means then by economic means. There's an awful lot of gas and oil up here in Canada...
don't be pedantic. does anyone believe that the 2 formats will split the market or that they'll both go the way of laserdiscs and DVDs will continue to reign supreme? no? then you have a duopoly with HD-DVD attempting to create a monopoly for itself.
consider the screams if the article was about microsoft paying off intel to quit making chips for Apple. sure apple still has alternatives, but you'd hear the anti-microsoft screams on mars.
my original point remains: is this legal and if not, what if hd-dvd was innocent?
if they were paid to support one technology over another, isn't that illegal, anti-competitive and/or monopolistic behaviour by the HD-DVD consortium? If so, would it be illegal if the consortium were innocent but the payoff came from some backer who stands to gain from HD-DVD beating out Blu-Ray?
not even close. you must be new here...
making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal
Right. As soon as they solve that whole spam problem and those personal data theft issues, then i'll consider not being able to change addresses at will
bottom line: no method of birth control is foolproof and there's no way to equip the mission to handle pregnancies. only way to be sure: all-male or all-female crews...give me an all-female crew and add me to the list of posters who advocate financing the mission through porn-cam rights...
But if you're going to buy from Amazon (for instance), you're going to have to suck it up and accept their cookies to use the shopping cart.
Exactly. I agree to use their cookies to enable the shopping cart. I'll even accept that the cookies then allow Amazon to make better suggestions for the next book I purchase. That does not mean I agree to allow someone else to profile me because Amazon sold the information, in specific or in aggregate.
Don't patronise the website? Well damn, I'd have to stop using the internet because it's such a prevalent condition, and, as my original questions illustrate, even informed consumers don't have reasonably easy options. *That's* why it should be legislated, consumers don't have another viable option.
I set my browser to "Ask me everytime" On rare occasions, I need to allow cookies that I'd previously blocked. Problem is that my block list is hundreds deep and the names aren't always obvious. How do I find the one cookie permission I need to reset, short of erasing all permissions and starting over again? Along those lines, when I do allow cookies to keep me logged into a website, for example, how do I tell which cookies from that website are needed to keep me logged in and which ones are unnecessary (trial-and-error often creates the previous problem)?