Incidentally, both national parties are racing to collect as much soft money as they can before McCain-Feingold has any chance of kicking in. If it's passed and signed as-is, then that's the end of the road, and that money will instead be going to state parties and interest groups.
I wonder if that's a factor in the timing of trying to push this particular legislation.
Unless you can convince somebody that it's a major political issue worth votes, or funding... why should they? They're merely representing the public views (mostly apathy and ignorance, except from the active participants on any given issue -- interest groups and issue-related companies).
The author suggests that the GOP capitalize on this as going against the populist image that the Dems. like to cultivate, but given that the GOP isn't exactly a populist party either, I'm not convinced that it would sway anybody.
Well, maybe the idealists in the Dems. who might consider abandoning the conventional parties and go towards... hrm, maybe Nader. But that probably wouldn't be THAT many, since most leftists realize that, at least at the state (most states, anyway) or Federal level, Naderite candidates have minimal electoral chances. So they'll compromise, just like unions largely supported Clinton regardless of NAFTA because the odds were that if Clinton wasn't re-elected, they'd get somebody whom they felt was even worse for their interests.
Name one concrete instance of how the GOP helped either Lay or Arthur Andersen cook the books, or conceal it. As far as I can tell, the WH staffers decided that it was too hot of a potato and didn't even dare forward it to the Pres., because of the bad press that his involvement would cause (no matter how justified, considering the impact on investor confidence in the overall market and accounting system).
But it still has to be reasonably acceptable, quality-wise, to the buyer. "New Coke", for instance, was not. More related to the topic, NKOTB didn't last that long, either, IIRC. Many heavily-advertised movies have fallen flat. "Blair Witch" -- perhaps the movie epitome of the "spend oodles money on advertising how little was spent on content" philosophy -- faded reasonably quickly, and AFAICT the sequels faded even faster.
Advertising and air-time can increase recognition, but it takes a certain degree of minimum acceptability to generate return sales.
Unlikely that it's just that. Clinton argued in favor of decency/censorship laws for the Internet, if memory serves. Admittedly, he wasn't a traditional Democrat -- being willing to buck his party on issues like free trade and so forth -- but I don't remember a significant Democratic revolt on that issue. Sen. Lieberman and Tipper Gore also supported mandatory content-based ratings for movies and music on similar grounds.
If it's an alliance on censorship, it's a shaky one -- just to keep the Democrats from allying briefly with the unusually motivated Christian core of the GOP (not a majority of the party, but they ARE unusually politically active) -- and not based on years of mutual friendship.
Yup. The original submitter of this piece erred when he called it an article. If the/. editors came up with their own title rather than using the submitter's, they erred as well.
If more "real" people gave a bit of money -- keep in mind that the per-candidate and total limits restrict how much any one company can contribute -- then Congressmen would be more free to ignore industry contributions.
That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.
This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.
Just a real-world bit -- if you have an unsecured swimming pool, and teens go trespassing and loudly playing in it at all hours, YOU can get nailed for having an "attractive nuisance", if memory serves.
An open relay has similar properties, except that it's even easier to abuse since the abusers can be from all over the world.
Hmmmmm, true. I'm not sure that any Congressman would be happy with what the solution to THAT would be (allowing returns of tried software w/n a reasonable period), 'though. That would be a much harder sell, unless there's ubiquitous activation requirements, and THAT would be a nightmare for everyone involved.
Folks who have laptops w/o built-in CD drives sometimes argue against SafeDisc and their ilk, since it forces them to use a port replicator or other means of connecting an external drive. *shrug*
Another rationale I've read is that some would prefer to put a music CD in the drive and play off the hard drive.
Agreed. Ideally, any licensing agreements and copy-protection schemes should be disclosed -- OUTSIDE of the shrink-wrapped media so that the consumer can demonstrate that he actually did NOT use the music or software when returning. (Either that, or he shrinkwrapped it himself, but the latter abuse is probably fairly limited.) AND it should be returnable for a full refund upon prompt rejection of license.
As it is, consumers are forced to gamble -- they're taking a chance unless conditions of use are fully disclosed before purchase. (And some of those terms can be pretty odd, like *one* archival copy -- what about tape backups, where relying on *one* tape is... well, stupid? Should they really care how many archival copies are made, as long as only ONE copy is ever in use at once, and are never possessed by anybody but the license holder -- and that all archival copies are either transferred to the new licensee or destroyed if the license is transferred?).
The AC is correct. SafeDisc and SafeDisc 2 are a) fairly common software copy-protection schemes, and b) known for incompatibilities with various CD drives (especially DVDs and CD-RWs from what I've read) and software.
And the standard "tech support" response is: buy another CD drive. Joy, for those unlucky enough to have drives that don't like SafeDisc.
The Taliban did not exist as a cohesive group until the early 90's, when they formed as a reaction to the corruption and chaos *after* y'all pulled out. Get your facts straight, bucko.
If you want to finger an Afghan as causing problems for Afghanistan -- go read up on Hekmatyar.
Yep. It's not like a criminal trial, where a guilty verdict with a specific charge leads to a very specific range of possible punishments, all supported by the law. With anti-trust, it's supposed to be a well-justified and thought-out remedy, and there are fewer guidelines or previous rulings to show the way.
Where I am (well, it's Pittsburgh, so what do you expect...), the unions ran a lengthy campaign asking people to call up the White House and ask for 40% tariffs plus aid. The 30% compromise might keep some votes from sliding to the Democrats... and with the Senate in Dem. control and the Gephardt possibly able to take over the House, well, the unions have some bargaining power.
Maybe next will be UAL. UAL caved and offered their mechanics a 37% raise, making them the best-paid in the airline industry, despite the hideously bad financials (analysts predicting that UAL will lose ~$20/share this year, if memory serves). Their turn next to ask for a handout, I guess. *shrug*
They're sufficiently comfortable with the present situation. Odds are, folks care more about what dress whatever celeb will were at the Oscars, or about trades to be made for the next NFL season, than they do about, oh, the software industry. Same way many folks on this board probably care more about transparent computer cases than they do about weak war crimes trials in Cambodia or the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. It's all a matter of priorities.
Now, if MSFT software regularly obliterated all their data, or otherwise caused huge amounts of *visible* pain, they might take a second look. But... they don't buy their software explicitly (it's all preinstalled) very often, they don't go around comparing browsers, and they don't really care about the details so long as the software keeps getting easier to use or having more features.
You do know that there are plea bargains in criminal trials, as well, right? And it's not proposed by the judge, but as a deal between plaintiff and defendant, and approved (or rejected) by the judge.
They're probably looking for a settlement because, with the record in the Court of Appeals being what it is *and* the previous judge being a publicity-loving jackass who got himself tossed out of the case after giving the appearance of partiality (no evidence required -- merely an appearance of such taints the whole shebang), they DON'T want to basically have to spend another decade wrangling over the proposed remedies.
Also, some of the mentioned packages, like Photoshop, are also offered in far-less-pricey limited versions, for those that DON'T need $500+ worth of obscure features.
I haven't poked around the CMU dormitory Windows/SMB network for a few years, but there used to be a LOT of machines offering w4r3z of everything from OSes to development tools to games and MP3s -- not too much searching required, and the bandwidth of a 10BT network. Computing Services may have cracked down since then, but *shrug* it'd surprise me if there weren't still a lot of w4r3zing.
Check the license terms. It wouldn't surprise me those terms expire once you're university affiliation ends, although that might not matter if it's long obsolete by then.
Slashdot Mirror
Boxing, bouncing bikini-clad Playmates delivering news commentary, perhaps?
Incidentally, both national parties are racing to collect as much soft money as they can before McCain-Feingold has any chance of kicking in. If it's passed and signed as-is, then that's the end of the road, and that money will instead be going to state parties and interest groups.
I wonder if that's a factor in the timing of trying to push this particular legislation.
*shrug*
Unless you can convince somebody that it's a major political issue worth votes, or funding... why should they? They're merely representing the public views (mostly apathy and ignorance, except from the active participants on any given issue -- interest groups and issue-related companies).
The author suggests that the GOP capitalize on this as going against the populist image that the Dems. like to cultivate, but given that the GOP isn't exactly a populist party either, I'm not convinced that it would sway anybody.
Well, maybe the idealists in the Dems. who might consider abandoning the conventional parties and go towards... hrm, maybe Nader. But that probably wouldn't be THAT many, since most leftists realize that, at least at the state (most states, anyway) or Federal level, Naderite candidates have minimal electoral chances. So they'll compromise, just like unions largely supported Clinton regardless of NAFTA because the odds were that if Clinton wasn't re-elected, they'd get somebody whom they felt was even worse for their interests.
Name one concrete instance of how the GOP helped either Lay or Arthur Andersen cook the books, or conceal it. As far as I can tell, the WH staffers decided that it was too hot of a potato and didn't even dare forward it to the Pres., because of the bad press that his involvement would cause (no matter how justified, considering the impact on investor confidence in the overall market and accounting system).
But it still has to be reasonably acceptable, quality-wise, to the buyer. "New Coke", for instance, was not. More related to the topic, NKOTB didn't last that long, either, IIRC. Many heavily-advertised movies have fallen flat. "Blair Witch" -- perhaps the movie epitome of the "spend oodles money on advertising how little was spent on content" philosophy -- faded reasonably quickly, and AFAICT the sequels faded even faster.
Advertising and air-time can increase recognition, but it takes a certain degree of minimum acceptability to generate return sales.
Unlikely that it's just that. Clinton argued in favor of decency/censorship laws for the Internet, if memory serves. Admittedly, he wasn't a traditional Democrat -- being willing to buck his party on issues like free trade and so forth -- but I don't remember a significant Democratic revolt on that issue. Sen. Lieberman and Tipper Gore also supported mandatory content-based ratings for movies and music on similar grounds.
If it's an alliance on censorship, it's a shaky one -- just to keep the Democrats from allying briefly with the unusually motivated Christian core of the GOP (not a majority of the party, but they ARE unusually politically active) -- and not based on years of mutual friendship.
Yup. The original submitter of this piece erred when he called it an article. If the /. editors came up with their own title rather than using the submitter's, they erred as well.
If more "real" people gave a bit of money -- keep in mind that the per-candidate and total limits restrict how much any one company can contribute -- then Congressmen would be more free to ignore industry contributions.
That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.
This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.
Just a real-world bit -- if you have an unsecured swimming pool, and teens go trespassing and loudly playing in it at all hours, YOU can get nailed for having an "attractive nuisance", if memory serves.
An open relay has similar properties, except that it's even easier to abuse since the abusers can be from all over the world.
Hmmmmm, true. I'm not sure that any Congressman would be happy with what the solution to THAT would be (allowing returns of tried software w/n a reasonable period), 'though. That would be a much harder sell, unless there's ubiquitous activation requirements, and THAT would be a nightmare for everyone involved.
Folks who have laptops w/o built-in CD drives sometimes argue against SafeDisc and their ilk, since it forces them to use a port replicator or other means of connecting an external drive. *shrug*
Another rationale I've read is that some would prefer to put a music CD in the drive and play off the hard drive.
Agreed. Ideally, any licensing agreements and copy-protection schemes should be disclosed -- OUTSIDE of the shrink-wrapped media so that the consumer can demonstrate that he actually did NOT use the music or software when returning. (Either that, or he shrinkwrapped it himself, but the latter abuse is probably fairly limited.) AND it should be returnable for a full refund upon prompt rejection of license.
As it is, consumers are forced to gamble -- they're taking a chance unless conditions of use are fully disclosed before purchase. (And some of those terms can be pretty odd, like *one* archival copy -- what about tape backups, where relying on *one* tape is... well, stupid? Should they really care how many archival copies are made, as long as only ONE copy is ever in use at once, and are never possessed by anybody but the license holder -- and that all archival copies are either transferred to the new licensee or destroyed if the license is transferred?).
The AC is correct. SafeDisc and SafeDisc 2 are a) fairly common software copy-protection schemes, and b) known for incompatibilities with various CD drives (especially DVDs and CD-RWs from what I've read) and software.
And the standard "tech support" response is: buy another CD drive. Joy, for those unlucky enough to have drives that don't like SafeDisc.
The Taliban did not exist as a cohesive group until the early 90's, when they formed as a reaction to the corruption and chaos *after* y'all pulled out. Get your facts straight, bucko.
If you want to finger an Afghan as causing problems for Afghanistan -- go read up on Hekmatyar.
To boost the female audience, perhaps?
Yep. It's not like a criminal trial, where a guilty verdict with a specific charge leads to a very specific range of possible punishments, all supported by the law. With anti-trust, it's supposed to be a well-justified and thought-out remedy, and there are fewer guidelines or previous rulings to show the way.
In this case, it probably *is* political.
Where I am (well, it's Pittsburgh, so what do you expect...), the unions ran a lengthy campaign asking people to call up the White House and ask for 40% tariffs plus aid. The 30% compromise might keep some votes from sliding to the Democrats... and with the Senate in Dem. control and the Gephardt possibly able to take over the House, well, the unions have some bargaining power.
Maybe next will be UAL. UAL caved and offered their mechanics a 37% raise, making them the best-paid in the airline industry, despite the hideously bad financials (analysts predicting that UAL will lose ~$20/share this year, if memory serves). Their turn next to ask for a handout, I guess. *shrug*
They're sufficiently comfortable with the present situation. Odds are, folks care more about what dress whatever celeb will were at the Oscars, or about trades to be made for the next NFL season, than they do about, oh, the software industry. Same way many folks on this board probably care more about transparent computer cases than they do about weak war crimes trials in Cambodia or the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. It's all a matter of priorities.
Now, if MSFT software regularly obliterated all their data, or otherwise caused huge amounts of *visible* pain, they might take a second look. But... they don't buy their software explicitly (it's all preinstalled) very often, they don't go around comparing browsers, and they don't really care about the details so long as the software keeps getting easier to use or having more features.
Sure they were. Clinton and his party took money from everybody, not just American citizens. Now that's open-minded.
You do know that there are plea bargains in criminal trials, as well, right? And it's not proposed by the judge, but as a deal between plaintiff and defendant, and approved (or rejected) by the judge.
They're probably looking for a settlement because, with the record in the Court of Appeals being what it is *and* the previous judge being a publicity-loving jackass who got himself tossed out of the case after giving the appearance of partiality (no evidence required -- merely an appearance of such taints the whole shebang), they DON'T want to basically have to spend another decade wrangling over the proposed remedies.
Also, some of the mentioned packages, like Photoshop, are also offered in far-less-pricey limited versions, for those that DON'T need $500+ worth of obscure features.
Depends where you are.
I haven't poked around the CMU dormitory Windows/SMB network for a few years, but there used to be a LOT of machines offering w4r3z of everything from OSes to development tools to games and MP3s -- not too much searching required, and the bandwidth of a 10BT network. Computing Services may have cracked down since then, but *shrug* it'd surprise me if there weren't still a lot of w4r3zing.
Check the license terms. It wouldn't surprise me those terms expire once you're university affiliation ends, although that might not matter if it's long obsolete by then.
Stop spreading myths.