If you wish to send a message that music prices are too high, then don't buy. Period.
It's possible to live without a single music CD, cassette,.mp3... none of these are basic "rights", you know; how can there be a right to a creative work that isn't essential for any function or value except possibly artistic merit? Unless you *created* the work, of course...
The only reason those CD prices are high is because numerous people are willing to pay that much. If very few people were willing, then it'd be uneconomical to charge that much. It's not like it's an essential service, like, say, water or electricity, that is basically mandatory and thus has relatively inelastic demand; it's something that people can do without. Vote with your dollars, and don't buy CD's or records if you think they're pricey -- and don't steal what you didn't buy.
Most people don't pay up-front for their MS software; they buy it with the computer, with the possible exception of games (and, last I checked, most games were priced pretty similarly -- $39.95-$49.95 or so, with few outliers). They fly in planes, and purchase their own drugs...
In addition, it's not infrequent for news programs to interview senior citizens and ask about their views on drug costs, so people often HEAR that others think that prescription drugs cost too much; and similar reports come out against the airlines. Just yesterday, their were stories regarding how numerous uninsured folks felt that prescription drug costs should be made lower...
All this coverage focuses people's attention. If you ask people what they thought during, say, the Tupac Amaru siege of the Japanese Embassy in Peru, I sincerely doubt that many people will remember a thing 'bout it. Or if you mention that the President might be disbarred for his legal misconduct, I doubt many folks follow this; even fewer would be aware of, say, what happened to a former WH intern named "Mary Mahoney", whose name also apparently surfaced on the Tripp tapes.
If the broadcast news and papers suddenly covered the travails of a (speculating here...) rare lizard species endangered by encroachment in the Namibian Desert, they'd likely focus on that as well. Then they'd forget 'bout it when the next story hit.
The Department of Justice, if memory serves, IS part of the Executive Branch, and not really meant to be independent in a certain sense. When independence is called for, there is -- or, rather, was -- the independent counsel statute, and the court system itself.
Subversion of the Judiciary itself is manifested more in cases involving such things as judges directing cases to favorable magistrates on behalf of the Executive Branch, or if there were any form of coercion involved.
One can argue that the DoJ regularly violates separation of powers by serving as a tool of blackmail when legislative efforts stall, since most companies cannot outlast the Federal Government when it comes to legal expenses and effort. However, they do need to be allowed discretion in choosing which cases to take on, as there are insufficient resources to go after everybody deserving... that would require a police state. Consequently, if one wants to reform the DoJ, the most effective way to send that message might be to vote against those who would mis-use that power.
Switching tactics may not be such a bad idea from their POV.
It does wonders for the Feds; whenever the Congress refuses to give the executive branch what it wants, the latter can resort to a) executive orders, and b) blackmail via the threat of lawsuits. Case in point: S&W, the tobacco industry, and so forth.
It *might* have just been acknowledging the likelihood that most of the health & beauty sites are of interest primarily to women...
One would suspect that such products as herbal remedies (usually marketed as natural, as if that were somehow always a GOOD thing; natural != healthful. Botulism is perfectly "natural" for instance.) and, say, perfume, are normally not marketed to men regardless of medium, with perhaps an exception in that guys may be besieged with ads for gifts 'round Valentine's.
Um... there's been more to the 'net than that. For a LONG time.
I sincerely doubt, say, that the "Cthulhu for President" site, or various archives of movie scripts, or reviewers' sites, or galleries of Pez dispensers... fall under your rather narrow view there. If people actually want to see all the oddness of the 'net, it's there. So where's the imbalance, again?
Perhaps just as interesting, and maybe more disturbing...
Consider the fact that various groups (such as a newly announced alliance of US tech companies) are pushing for networking over power lines and accessible via power outlets, might a creative engineer eventually be able to build, say, a network-capable bug inside a power cable? Or one of those ubiquitous power adapters?
You'd have the capability to have a decent amount of code with miniature electronics; it could archive a/v recordings for a while and then xmit in bursts at hours when the owner is less likely to be awake and using the network... hrmmm.
Hrmmm. If anything happened 'round the office that could constitute a "hostile environment" (in the eyes of the beholder, ugh...), or otherwise open up the company to a possible lawsuit (say, involving an employee or competitor) then there might definitely be grounds for removal. At least in this legal climate, there would be.
Without firearms, your typical scenario might be a few street punks with chains or knives cornering a briefcase-wielding chap. Or, they can wander into a populated restaurant. Odds definitely favor them in the first case -- although MAYBE they won't kill the chap, they trivially can; in the latter case, it'd be EXTREMELY rare for the patrons to gang up, since nobody enjoys being beat up or crippled.
With firearms, we note that everybody stands a risk of being shot -- including the thugs. In the first case, if Mr. Victim happens to be packing, he poses a mortal threat; and odds are, most robbers aren't willing to face a high risk of death just for a few bucks. In the latter case, any single patron can take down a robber, and the odds STRONGLY suggest that it'd be stupid to rob a restaurant where the patrons are likely armed.
So the scenario is fundamentally different.
This deterrent value is actually borne out by statistics. Have you, perchance, seen a certain volume by a Prof. Lott? He uses statistics from every county in the US, over years...
One obvious fallacy in your argument is that if only the criminal has a gun, he does not need to fire and thus alert everybody. Most unarmed civillians do not exactly pose a threat to an armed mugger... so now the THREAT of the firearm suffices. Which IS more intimidating, since now a mugger doesn't have to way 300#...
In addition, this allows for easier hot burglaries, as British statistics demonstrate.
Whereas in the US, anybody who tries such a thing is decently likely to encounter one VERY angry homeowner with a handgun, and therefore simply TRYING is stupid.
Actually, violent crime -- especially "hot" burglaries -- has been INCREASING in Britain and Australia since their gun bans... so if you want to retain your POV, they're very, very bad examples of your case.
US gun control actually disproportionately hurts the poor, as they're the most likely to live in crime-ridden, densely populated, poor neighborhoods with minimal police "protection" (it's difficult to protect proactively against random crime) where violence takes place. By, say, banning cheap handguns -- a favorite policy of HCI and allies -- the law-abiding poor are being disarmed.
Governments DO influence the media, in ways both subtle and not.
If you're a reporter who's covering Washington, and you're dealing with a powerful President, are you really going to risk having your privileges revoked due to angering him with an expose? In particular, if you already voted for the guy twice, and if you agree with many of his ideals?
Watch, say, NBC and CBS; I've seen quite a few times when they've BOTH covered the same exact relatively minor story, like 'bout a species of fish being endangered by a particular dam project, when they could have spent the same time covering, oh, any number of investigations of the President and friends, like how a particular judge has steered sensitive cases to the President's appointees. CBS in particular is good at ignoring politically damaging stories and running news on global warming for a week...
So get your news from other sources 'sides TV. The NY Times and your local paper(s) are likely NOT owned by, say, AOL/TW. And so forth.
For instance, are you going to trace the history of crypto, which if memory serves allegedly traces back at least to the Roman Empire, and which had a MAJOR role in, say, WWII?
Suppose somebody links to a personal page on any of the free hosters, like Tripod or Hotmail. Then, the account lapses and somebody else gets the same URL; or, alternately, the page's owner simply drastically revamps content.
What previously was, say, something mildly amusing but innocuous like experimental results involving candy and chemistry, might be replaced with a page advertising drug paraphenalia or other contraband (given the fact a pair of bozos tried to auction a LOT of weed on Ebay, I wouldn't be too surprised...). Should the linker be held responsible? Must he be given a "reasonable" amount of time to review everything linked to?
Also, by transivity this would suggest that, say, everybody who links to search engines (a LOT of normal sites, like colleges and such...) is legally responsible for hardcore porn involving pre-teens and dogs. I'm not sure that this is such a good idea, although it'd be a field day for lawyers.
Have a chat with the Phillip Morris attorneys. I'm sure they'll enjoy being told that the court system is stacked in their favor.
In many cases, look at the juries. They're the ones that decide whether a single car accident (i.e. NOT a class-action suit) is worth billions of dollars in damages (true award!), for instance.
McCain started using push polling; setting up a phony front group (Catholic Voter Alert); and issuing, then denying, attack fliers. For a man trying to capitalize on "Straight Talk" and honesty, he certainly turned nasty.
But it still doesn't gall me as much as a certain chap in my state seeking the Dem. nomination for senator. This particular chap has the gall to run ads featuring George Washington endorsing him...
If they simply lie down and surrender, then that's an open invitation for Lawsuit-o-Rama from every state that ever bought MS products, every organization...
The harder they fight, the likelier it is that a) the DoJ will eventually become resented by folks for spending so much on one company, b) random lawyers will be dissuaded from going after 'im.
It's more than that. For instance, there's the issue of the consent decree THAT THEY AGREED TO earlier regarding bundling of product. If the judge determines that they violated it, well then we have a problem.
There were also issues of predatory pricing. It's currently illegal to, for instance, maintain a monopoly by pricing your products at a massive loss to obliterate your competitors, if memory serves.
Slashdot Mirror
If you wish to send a message that music prices are too high, then don't buy. Period.
.mp3... none of these are basic "rights", you know; how can there be a right to a creative work that isn't essential for any function or value except possibly artistic merit? Unless you *created* the work, of course...
It's possible to live without a single music CD, cassette,
The only reason those CD prices are high is because numerous people are willing to pay that much. If very few people were willing, then it'd be uneconomical to charge that much. It's not like it's an essential service, like, say, water or electricity, that is basically mandatory and thus has relatively inelastic demand; it's something that people can do without. Vote with your dollars, and don't buy CD's or records if you think they're pricey -- and don't steal what you didn't buy.
He also said that he was unsympathetic to lawsuits.
I wouldn't trust Gore with a penny, but I'm not convinced yet that Bush is significantly here.
Most people don't pay up-front for their MS software; they buy it with the computer, with the possible exception of games (and, last I checked, most games were priced pretty similarly -- $39.95-$49.95 or so, with few outliers). They fly in planes, and purchase their own drugs...
In addition, it's not infrequent for news programs to interview senior citizens and ask about their views on drug costs, so people often HEAR that others think that prescription drugs cost too much; and similar reports come out against the airlines. Just yesterday, their were stories regarding how numerous uninsured folks felt that prescription drug costs should be made lower...
All this coverage focuses people's attention. If you ask people what they thought during, say, the Tupac Amaru siege of the Japanese Embassy in Peru, I sincerely doubt that many people will remember a thing 'bout it. Or if you mention that the President might be disbarred for his legal misconduct, I doubt many folks follow this; even fewer would be aware of, say, what happened to a former WH intern named "Mary Mahoney", whose name also apparently surfaced on the Tripp tapes.
If the broadcast news and papers suddenly covered the travails of a (speculating here...) rare lizard species endangered by encroachment in the Namibian Desert, they'd likely focus on that as well. Then they'd forget 'bout it when the next story hit.
The Department of Justice, if memory serves, IS part of the Executive Branch, and not really meant to be independent in a certain sense. When independence is called for, there is -- or, rather, was -- the independent counsel statute, and the court system itself.
Subversion of the Judiciary itself is manifested more in cases involving such things as judges directing cases to favorable magistrates on behalf of the Executive Branch, or if there were any form of coercion involved.
One can argue that the DoJ regularly violates separation of powers by serving as a tool of blackmail when legislative efforts stall, since most companies cannot outlast the Federal Government when it comes to legal expenses and effort. However, they do need to be allowed discretion in choosing which cases to take on, as there are insufficient resources to go after everybody deserving... that would require a police state. Consequently, if one wants to reform the DoJ, the most effective way to send that message might be to vote against those who would mis-use that power.
Switching tactics may not be such a bad idea from their POV.
It does wonders for the Feds; whenever the Congress refuses to give the executive branch what it wants, the latter can resort to a) executive orders, and b) blackmail via the threat of lawsuits. Case in point: S&W, the tobacco industry, and so forth.
It *might* have just been acknowledging the likelihood that most of the health & beauty sites are of interest primarily to women...
One would suspect that such products as herbal remedies (usually marketed as natural, as if that were somehow always a GOOD thing; natural != healthful. Botulism is perfectly "natural" for instance.)
and, say, perfume, are normally not marketed to men regardless of medium, with perhaps an exception in that guys may be besieged with ads for gifts 'round Valentine's.
Um... there's been more to the 'net than that. For a LONG time.
I sincerely doubt, say, that the "Cthulhu for President" site, or various archives of movie scripts, or reviewers' sites, or galleries of Pez dispensers... fall under your rather narrow view there. If people actually want to see all the oddness of the 'net, it's there. So where's the imbalance, again?
Perhaps just as interesting, and maybe more disturbing...
Consider the fact that various groups (such as a newly announced alliance of US tech companies) are pushing for networking over power lines and accessible via power outlets, might a creative engineer eventually be able to build, say, a network-capable bug inside a power cable? Or one of those ubiquitous power adapters?
You'd have the capability to have a decent amount of code with miniature electronics; it could archive a/v recordings for a while and then xmit in bursts at hours when the owner is less likely to be awake and using the network... hrmmm.
Could be interesting, no?
Hrmmm. If anything happened 'round the office that could constitute a "hostile environment" (in the eyes of the beholder, ugh...), or otherwise open up the company to a possible lawsuit (say, involving an employee or competitor) then there might definitely be grounds for removal. At least in this legal climate, there would be.
Hardly.
Check your own crime statistics. Especially 'hot' burglary.
Then check information about the rising use of weapons in British crime.
Not really. The odds have shifted.
Without firearms, your typical scenario might be a few street punks with chains or knives cornering a briefcase-wielding chap. Or, they can wander into a populated restaurant. Odds definitely favor them in the first case -- although MAYBE they won't kill the chap, they trivially can; in the latter case, it'd be EXTREMELY rare for the patrons to gang up, since nobody enjoys being beat up or crippled.
With firearms, we note that everybody stands a risk of being shot -- including the thugs. In the first case, if Mr. Victim happens to be packing, he poses a mortal threat; and odds are, most robbers aren't willing to face a high risk of death just for a few bucks. In the latter case, any single patron can take down a robber, and the odds STRONGLY suggest that it'd be stupid to rob a restaurant where the patrons are likely armed.
So the scenario is fundamentally different.
This deterrent value is actually borne out by statistics. Have you, perchance, seen a certain volume by a Prof. Lott? He uses statistics from every county in the US, over years...
One obvious fallacy in your argument is that if only the criminal has a gun, he does not need to fire and thus alert everybody. Most unarmed civillians do not exactly pose a threat to an armed mugger... so now the THREAT of the firearm suffices. Which IS more intimidating, since now a mugger doesn't have to way 300#...
In addition, this allows for easier hot burglaries, as British statistics demonstrate.
Whereas in the US, anybody who tries such a thing is decently likely to encounter one VERY angry homeowner with a handgun, and therefore simply TRYING is stupid.
Actually, violent crime -- especially "hot" burglaries -- has been INCREASING in Britain and Australia since their gun bans... so if you want to retain your POV, they're very, very bad examples of your case.
US gun control actually disproportionately hurts the poor, as they're the most likely to live in crime-ridden, densely populated, poor neighborhoods with minimal police "protection" (it's difficult to protect proactively against random crime) where violence takes place. By, say, banning cheap handguns -- a favorite policy of HCI and allies -- the law-abiding poor are being disarmed.
Governments DO influence the media, in ways both subtle and not.
If you're a reporter who's covering Washington, and you're dealing with a powerful President, are you really going to risk having your privileges revoked due to angering him with an expose? In particular, if you already voted for the guy twice, and if you agree with many of his ideals?
Watch, say, NBC and CBS; I've seen quite a few times when they've BOTH covered the same exact relatively minor story, like 'bout a species of fish being endangered by a particular dam project, when they could have spent the same time covering, oh, any number of investigations of the President and friends, like how a particular judge has steered sensitive cases to the President's appointees. CBS in particular is good at ignoring politically damaging stories and running news on global warming for a week...
So get your news from other sources 'sides TV. The NY Times and your local paper(s) are likely NOT owned by, say, AOL/TW. And so forth.
...how far are you going back?
For instance, are you going to trace the history of crypto, which if memory serves allegedly traces back at least to the Roman Empire, and which had a MAJOR role in, say, WWII?
Funny man... =)
...but who's the Mule?
Suppose somebody links to a personal page on any of the free hosters, like Tripod or Hotmail. Then, the account lapses and somebody else gets the same URL; or, alternately, the page's owner simply drastically revamps content.
What previously was, say, something mildly amusing but innocuous like experimental results involving candy and chemistry, might be replaced with a page advertising drug paraphenalia or other contraband (given the fact a pair of bozos tried to auction a LOT of weed on Ebay, I wouldn't be too surprised...). Should the linker be held responsible? Must he be given a "reasonable" amount of time to review everything linked to?
Also, by transivity this would suggest that, say, everybody who links to search engines (a LOT of normal sites, like colleges and such...) is legally responsible for hardcore porn involving pre-teens and dogs. I'm not sure that this is such a good idea, although it'd be a field day for lawyers.
Have a chat with the Phillip Morris attorneys. I'm sure they'll enjoy being told that the court system is stacked in their favor.
In many cases, look at the juries. They're the ones that decide whether a single car accident (i.e. NOT a class-action suit) is worth billions of dollars in damages (true award!), for instance.
Heh. Not that Hatch might have any ulterior motives, like companies in his home state... *cough*
Hm. ISTR that he's Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee. If I'm right and he retains that spot, I doubt he'd quitely accede to letting MS go...
Politicians have a dead giveaway when they're lying to you: their lips move. :)
*shrug*
McCain started using push polling; setting up a phony front group (Catholic Voter Alert); and issuing, then denying, attack fliers. For a man trying to capitalize on "Straight Talk" and honesty, he certainly turned nasty.
But it still doesn't gall me as much as a certain chap in my state seeking the Dem. nomination for senator. This particular chap has the gall to run ads featuring George Washington endorsing him...
If they simply lie down and surrender, then that's an open invitation for Lawsuit-o-Rama from every state that ever bought MS products, every organization...
The harder they fight, the likelier it is that a) the DoJ will eventually become resented by folks for spending so much on one company, b) random lawyers will be dissuaded from going after 'im.
It's more than that. For instance, there's the issue of the consent decree THAT THEY AGREED TO earlier regarding bundling of product. If the judge determines that they violated it, well then we have a problem.
There were also issues of predatory pricing. It's currently illegal to, for instance, maintain a monopoly by pricing your products at a massive loss to obliterate your competitors, if memory serves.
Nanosoft?
;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
*shrug*
I was always under the impression that subliminal messages were shown ineffectual in studies, and thoroughly discredited.
See, say
a Skeptical Inqurirer article, with references.