Hardly. There are other issues involved here, such how the book characterizes Slashdot, and by extension, its users. It would be disingenuous for the book to cite only comments that support his thesis, and then pass this off as the collective work of the Slashdot community, as there were and are dissenters here on even the least controversial issues. If the book implies that everybody here feels that geeks are abused during HS, then that is providing a false impression.
In addition, it would be decent to cite entire threads -- and whether or not that occurred has not been mentioned. Realize that this is a *discussion* board and *not* a board for posting isolated messages that must stand alone...
The issue of anonymity hurts the credibility of any such work. Many of us, if sufficiently bored, could probably employ multiple writing styles and positions in order to simulate an entire discussion under the 'Anonymous Coward' epithet. Without at least making some effort to verify individuality and authenticity, the book could not really claim anything much stronger than, "These messages appeared on Slashdot and were attributed to (x) different accounts".
Quoting people without giving credit, in a published work, raises ethical issues; while there may be a right to quote, one may argue that there IS a responsibility to offer credit. I really would not WANT to be identified on such a permanent medium, out of context, but perhaps some of the posters WOULD want that option. That providing this option might be a tedious burden does not absolve the editors of it, any more than "taxes being onerous" is a legitimate argument for accepting the benefits of citizenship and residency without paying.
Finally, there are ethical issues about using the speech of others to support charities, most of which work for causes that some of us may oppose...
I can think of a variety of ways to use the Web to hurt people.
* Post (possibly in a pre-arranged exchange) classified information. Pseudo-anonymously, like via a guestbook CGI. Might be an interesting way to leak secrets for the spook on a budget if both know about steganography.
* Subtle DOS. Take over a popular web site. Do nonsensical things like replace the background w/ an HREF to a shopping cart CGI on another popular web site.
* Fraud. Bogus login screens and all that. Malicious applets specialized for capturing information.
Bytes can be misused -- very maliciously, in fact.
And the linker bears responsibility for linking, as presumably he was not FORCED to link unless the server was cracked.
Try telling an undercover cop where to get some contraband, such as crack. Even if you yourself are not the one carrying the stash, and probably even if you do not touch the money, I sincerely doubt that they'll let you go, since you are willingly and knowingly facilitating a criminal transaction. I would agree with the prosecutor in this case, as you are, indeed, being an active accomplice in crime.
Unfortunately, the article does NOT mention whether the ruling covers 'unusual' situations, like what happens if you allow people to submit links and they get automatically added; you link to a legitimate page that gets replaced later on with illegal content; or the server is cracked, the link is misdirected, and the page owner (the page with the link) later on maintains the page without noticing. In these cases, the user is arguably NOT being a willing accomplice. Ignorance of the illegality of a deed is generally no defense, but complete and reasonable ignorance of the deed itself really should be.
Well, the article states that there's some room for debate, so presumably the text of the ruling doesn't specify down to the nitty gritty for the general case... so maybe later rulings will clarify.
Anybody familiar with Japan's legal system care to comment?
Anybody who thinks that the US Code is the most draconian must be seriously stoned. In many countries, you really wouldn't, say, want to publicly make the same kind of cracks about the Government that Leno and others can make freely every weeknight in front of the nation...
There are legal limits as to how much of any broadcast TV market you can own, if memory serves. Therefore, AOL/TW cannot be the sole source of TV news -- probably the most common medium for news nowadays -- without some serious legal complications. There definitely are limits for radio, and the radio programs that are out there often disagree vehemently with television news broadcasts today...
The news does not come from one source. There are enough diverse interests to make sure that this does not happen. After all, one can get a pretty darn profitable audience by pointing out lapses, like how various news events that are most unhelpful to those in power seem to get far less coverage...
It's probably more familiar to their audience, from formulaic movies/TV. I'm not a firearms guru, so can't claim for sure that it IS a (scoped?) AK, but it sure doesn't look like either an M16 or its futuristic replacement.
Even if they knew better, it's quite possible they didn't care. Reporters tend to gloss over such "minor details" as semi/fully- automatic, anyway.
So how much does all this gear weigh? I seem to recall an old newspaper article discussing their development of a high-tech rifle, and noting that it was HEAVY compared to, say, your usual M16 variant. Much, much heavier, which you'd think might be an issue in built-up areas situation where you might have to react VERY quickly.
Then there's reliability. Unreliable gear might be worse than none at all if it leads to overconfidence or other forms of misjudgement. The more complex a system is, the more possible points of failure -- witness, say, the AH64 variants, which from what I've read are remarkably nifty, but also very poor from a maintenance perspective, with a high rate of cannibilazation for parts. OTOH, simpler crafts like B52s are still in service, and with updates are expected to serve for years to come...
The "choice" they've been trying to cut down is "Which basically identical clone game -- featuring near-exact copies of gameplay, art, name, and ALL OTHER aspects" can we buy?
It's not a question of, say, D&D vs Ultima (which are NOT that similar, really...). It's closer to directly ripping off somebody's book but changing the names and perhaps reordering a few clauses occasionally -- which is not permitted except by the author's explicit consent.
Re:(Offtopic) Moderation is only half the problem.
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 1
Maybe both good and bad karma should decay towards 0 over time. That's what's triggering the negative-rating default, right?
That would
a) let somebody who trolls for a while *chill*, start being a rational poster, and if he's not moderated down more, return to a default of 0
b) mean that just because somebody amasses a karma stockpile, doesn't mean that they can post in perpetuity at, say, 2 (given that moderators only have 5 pts per session, and don't seem to often use 'overrated') -- if they STOP posting things that are interesting / insightful / informative, they return to a more normal status.
At the moment, their are active (i.e. people dying) insurgencies and wars going on in South America, Africa, and Asia. Asia, Europe and North America supply much of the arms. This has been true for... pretty much the entire century. For prior centuries, replace with different conflicts.
Right now, as you read this, somebody is probably getting shot with a cheap AK-47 or clone (distributed worldwide during the Soviet era, and cloned by the PRC; a particular choice as it's mechanically simple and known to be VERY reliable in adverse conditiosn), being mutilated with a machete, or possibly blown up with a car bomb. Or, perhaps, simply starving to death when either a rebel movement or a government army seizes food shipments.
People will, almost certainly, remain warlike until they go extinct. After all, there are not only a finite number of resources on the planet, but also substantial power structures that conflict with each other. Consequently, it's quite anticipate conflicts and attempt to deter them before they occur, ala the reasoning behind nuclear arsenals -- which LOWER the chance of an enemy being willing to attack you, as long as you have a credible delivery system.
In this case, there are other nations which are more than capable of developing significant resources towards the militarization of space, such as Russia, if it can divert its attention from the Chechen situation and perhaps boost its economy with some oil contracts; and China, which has an aerospace program that *we* (read: Hughes, Lockheed, and the Depts of State and Commerce, IIRC) significantly boosted.... and both are known for belligerent positions versus the United States.
Re:Change it into something for nerds!
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 1
I think you attribute too much to MSFT. It's not just MSFT...
There's a realization that bear markets happen, and that there is NO guarantee of success.
There's a realization that many, MANY tech companies are going to go bankrupt soon, because they have neither the cash required to continue operating, nor the means to raise more from VCs tired of throwing capital down bottomless pits.
There's a realization that many of the "old economy" stocks have just as good fundamentals as they always did, while many of the newer tech companies don't.
Why should people invest in companies that don't have credible plans for profits in the forseeable future, when they can instead go for proven performers?
Re:Stock markets crashing only hurts corps.
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 1
You obviously never opened a single economics textbook -- or had a rational thought about the matter in your entire life.
The money didn't *leave* the stock market. On paper, it vaporized. There's no fixed supply of on-paper money here, folks. Imagine, for instance, that CSCO suddenly gets nailed heavily for anti-trust. Or, say, your favorite.com goes bankrupt as its CFO realizes that at some point, you NEED positive cash flow.
The value's gone. Hold 500 shares? They're non-sellable, of no value to anyone else -- or you. You didn't take your money elsewhere. You don't have their value. It simply vaporized.
Consequences? Unemployment, as people lose jobs when the companies find it more difficult to raise cash. Consumer spending may drop, when people realize that, hey, maybe the bull market WON'T continue forever. Sales then lower, hurting bottom lines further. New companies find it more difficult to lure people, because their stock looks less intriguing. Pension funds suffer BIG TIME as much of their value tends to be invested in equities. More people suffer when the income they counted on is supposed to come from funds that are now well below what their managers anticipated.
But, oh, that doesn't matter to you. Guess you must be livin' in a cabin in the Yukon, then.
Interesting nick, but an imprecise argument. Since it is THEIR creative work, they are not obligated to release it for free. They may, if they choose, release it under completely insane terms ranging from the wildly generous (artists pay "customers" to distribute CDs at no purchase cost) to extreme (to buy one of their CDs, you basically have to take out a second mortgage). Metallica chose to sell their music. That's their decision. There is no "right" for them to profit, because their is no obligation for anybody else to receive the music and pay for it. However, there is no right for anybody else to accept the music *without* paying, except under terms that Metallica has agreed do. You are only obligated to pay if you obtain the recording, so if nobody wants it, they aren't entitled to a profit.
How precisely does showing a firearm demonstrate instability and danger, by itself? If he's reasonably trained (some schools have rifle teams... and they DON'T go rampaging...), and generally has good judgement as to perceiving threats, he can make y'all safer. If some loon chooses to ram a Cadillac and run over kids (which HAS been done), the police likely aren't able to arrive in time. Consequently, the only feasible method of self-defense in such a situation is for somebody to be armed (as fists don't stop Cadillacs, and most folks wouldn't be willing to try to jump into a car that's running over people...).
Cops walk 'round with firearms. Most of 'em never even *draw*, let alone fire. It's not the showing itself that's a threat without additional context like simultaneously verbalizing threats against the pop.
Um, many conservatives do NOT have a problem with secular schools simply due to their secular nature.
When they impose polices like ZERO tolerance of "violence" (Having your picture taken on top of a field gun is not OK. Fighting back is never OK. Saying "bang bang" is never OK. Violent skits are never OK....), or encourage students to explain how words "feel" via "whole language" -- encouraging them to invent their own spellings, and essentially pushing EMPATHY, not EDUCATION, *then* there are severe problems.
Education is meant to be effective. It's not meant to boost all students to equal levels of happiness, or to claim equal levels of achievement. Something's wrong when whether students feel happy with themselves matters more than whether they can rationally assess historical events or comprehend mathematical proofs, or even make themselves understood in something at least properly reminiscent of acceptable, coherent language.
Ummm, in most countries judges are required to uphold the law, regardless of their own feelings or opinion, unless they can show legal basis as to why the law should be overturned. It's the legislative body's right and duty to maintain a consistent set of up-to-date legislation.
In the United States, for instance, judges would not get very far if they, oh, chose to ignore laws and freed defendants unless they could overturn a law on constitutional grounds. Pacifists judges would not be permitted to let defendants cheerfully evade the draft, for instance, were it ever to be revived, and the doctrine of "nullfication" (if memory serves, that's the correct term for the concept that African-American jurors should be lax on African-Americans in order to balance for alleged injustices prior and present) also has no basis in law. The judicial system is not the lawmaker.
So if German law states that ISPs are liable, and there are no legal grounds for overturning that, and their judges don't get much more latitude than most anywhere else, the fault really lies with the lawmakers and those who elected them.
Why not? They've got to be under less political pressure to hold back than the U.S. -- if Microsoft were to take a sudden hit, and (gasp!) suffer for a while, Washington State's luxury car dealers might be the worst hit. Or, more seriously, mostly U.S. citizens -- employers, stockholders, and dependent companies.
And it's another way for 'em to rub the US's nose in it s'more. "Look, those silly Americans can't enforce their own laws..." Which, if it brings a bit of shame to the (US) Gov't, can't be all that bad.;-)
Hmmm. In the '97-'98, the Trial Lawyers Association gave $2,424,300 to federal candidates (86% to Dem., 13% to GOP); this election cycle, the number appears to be $812,000 (81% / 18%). Small amount to pay when the federal tobaccy case results in one law firm getting $1 billion in fees -- and that's a reduction from the original agreement.
Looks like allowing the lawsuits benefits candidates, as well. Like Richard A. Gephardt, $10k this cycle. Ditto for Martin Frost of TX., Patrick J. Kennedy of RI -- all this cycle. Last cycle, soem contributions apparently reached $20k (Lois Capps, CA), and there were numerous $10k contributions.
Al Gore, as of 4/27/99 (i.e. OLD numbers) raised $1.4 million from lawyers; Bush, $747,000; Bradley, $646,000.
It's off-topic, but may be of interest to Slashdotters; as of that date, Gore had raised $63,875 from Time Warner (either PAC or directly from employees; this doesn't say). Donors giving $200+ must list their employer. TW also was the source of $46,400 for Bradley.
It's an election year. See the poll? If a remedy is taken that many voters disagree with, I wouldn't be surprised if they blam Mr. Gore, despite his lack of direct involvement (AFAIK).
Then, if MS takes another hit (one that lasts at least until November), and the MANY people that hold it continue to suffer, those folks as well will probably blame Bill -- of Bill, Al and Janet; not Bill, Paul and Steve. Folks suddenly blaming the Gov't for their economic issues have been known to vote in numbers...
Even on USENET, most RTFMs are due to people asking questions that often were asked and answered just 24 hours before, happen to appear MANY times in Deja, are answered in howtos with obvious names, and are featured prominently in user manuals as well.
'coz many new users don't bother to read a single document, it seems, before rushing off to CNET and using their Web interface to ask the same question 4+ groups.
In upper case... With lots of exclamation points in the subject... Which happens to be ">>> HELP ME PLZ!!! "...
And it has nothing to do with the fact that they're regularly spending mucho dinero on their border war with Eritrea, and that numerous 3rd world nations similarly prioritize either their own land grabs or assisting others in war over feeding their people? Others deal with constant civil war... Sudan, Rwanda, Angola (on/off), Zaire, Eritrea, Ethiopia...
India COULD be spending on, say, infrastructure. But you could probably bet your house on the idea that they'll raise their defense spending instead.
*sigh* Develop first, and later they should be able to easily afford nuclear weaponry if that's what floats their boat.
Only if the artist can push numerous units otherwise.
Say a CD goes platinum -- 1 million units. If the artist could sell ~10,590 CDs at the full price of $17.00, *plus* enough to recoup the costs of manufacturing, advertising and distribution -- THEN it's a ripoff.
But if the artist wouldn't make as much from the same record because he could not reach as large an audience with similar effort, then it might be termed a service, assuming that the artist's main utility is total net income and not per-unit gain.
Possibly a bad example. ISTR that some major gun manufacturers were successfully sued by a major city or two regarding crimes committed with their firearms. The plaintiffs' arguments was that the gun manufacturers were aware of "problem" dealers and did not do enough to screen them out, and that it marketed certain firearms with an eye towards criminals -- advertising such things as "fingerprint-resistant" grips. Legally, there's a lot of ugliness regarding the suing of manufacturers. Other cities are considering suing the gun manufacturers to recoup medical expenses incurred in treating victims. All this happens despite the fact that the end users are the folks doing the actual shooting...
I wouldn't be too surprised if the plaintiffs in this issue were able to persuade a jury that the Napster folks were negligent in combatting MP3 piracy, or that this was their primary focus. Juries do strange things sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly. There are other issues involved here, such how the book characterizes Slashdot, and by extension, its users. It would be disingenuous for the book to cite only comments that support his thesis, and then pass this off as the collective work of the Slashdot community, as there were and are dissenters here on even the least controversial issues. If the book implies that everybody here feels that geeks are abused during HS, then that is providing a false impression.
In addition, it would be decent to cite entire threads -- and whether or not that occurred has not been mentioned. Realize that this is a *discussion* board and *not* a board for posting isolated messages that must stand alone...
The issue of anonymity hurts the credibility of any such work. Many of us, if sufficiently bored, could probably employ multiple writing styles and positions in order to simulate an entire discussion under the 'Anonymous Coward' epithet. Without at least making some effort to verify individuality and authenticity, the book could not really claim anything much stronger than, "These messages appeared on Slashdot and were attributed to (x) different accounts".
Quoting people without giving credit, in a published work, raises ethical issues; while there may be a right to quote, one may argue that there IS a responsibility to offer credit. I really would not WANT to be identified on such a permanent medium, out of context, but perhaps some of the posters WOULD want that option. That providing this option might be a tedious burden does not absolve the editors of it, any more than "taxes being onerous" is a legitimate argument for accepting the benefits of citizenship and residency without paying.
Finally, there are ethical issues about using the speech of others to support charities, most of which work for causes that some of us may oppose...
I can think of a variety of ways to use the Web to hurt people.
* Post (possibly in a pre-arranged exchange) classified information. Pseudo-anonymously, like via a guestbook CGI. Might be an interesting way to leak secrets for the spook on a budget if both know about steganography.
* Subtle DOS. Take over a popular web site. Do nonsensical things like replace the background w/ an HREF to a shopping cart CGI on another popular web site.
* Fraud. Bogus login screens and all that. Malicious applets specialized for capturing information.
Bytes can be misused -- very maliciously, in fact.
And the linker bears responsibility for linking, as presumably he was not FORCED to link unless the server was cracked.
Try telling an undercover cop where to get some contraband, such as crack. Even if you yourself are not the one carrying the stash, and probably even if you do not touch the money, I sincerely doubt that they'll let you go, since you are willingly and knowingly facilitating a criminal transaction. I would agree with the prosecutor in this case, as you are, indeed, being an active accomplice in crime.
Unfortunately, the article does NOT mention whether the ruling covers 'unusual' situations, like what happens if you allow people to submit links and they get automatically added; you link to a legitimate page that gets replaced later on with illegal content; or the server is cracked, the link is misdirected, and the page owner (the page with the link) later on maintains the page without noticing. In these cases, the user is arguably NOT being a willing accomplice. Ignorance of the illegality of a deed is generally no defense, but complete and reasonable ignorance of the deed itself really should be.
Well, the article states that there's some room for debate, so presumably the text of the ruling doesn't specify down to the nitty gritty for the general case... so maybe later rulings will clarify.
Anybody familiar with Japan's legal system care to comment?
Anybody who thinks that the US Code is the most draconian must be seriously stoned. In many countries, you really wouldn't, say, want to publicly make the same kind of cracks about the Government that Leno and others can make freely every weeknight in front of the nation...
There are legal limits as to how much of any broadcast TV market you can own, if memory serves. Therefore, AOL/TW cannot be the sole source of TV news -- probably the most common medium for news nowadays -- without some serious legal complications. There definitely are limits for radio, and the radio programs that are out there often disagree vehemently with television news broadcasts today...
The news does not come from one source. There are enough diverse interests to make sure that this does not happen. After all, one can get a pretty darn profitable audience by pointing out lapses, like how various news events that are most unhelpful to those in power seem to get far less coverage...
It's probably more familiar to their audience, from formulaic movies/TV. I'm not a firearms guru, so can't claim for sure that it IS a (scoped?) AK, but it sure doesn't look like either an M16 or its futuristic replacement.
Even if they knew better, it's quite possible they didn't care. Reporters tend to gloss over such "minor details" as semi/fully- automatic, anyway.
Hrmmm. If an opponent has the resources to consider a high-altitude nuclear detonation to cause an EMP, do you not have larger problems?
So how much does all this gear weigh? I seem to recall an old newspaper article discussing their development of a high-tech rifle, and noting that it was HEAVY compared to, say, your usual M16 variant. Much, much heavier, which you'd think might be an issue in built-up areas situation where you might have to react VERY quickly.
Then there's reliability. Unreliable gear might be worse than none at all if it leads to overconfidence or other forms of misjudgement. The more complex a system is, the more possible points of failure -- witness, say, the AH64 variants, which from what I've read are remarkably nifty, but also very poor from a maintenance perspective, with a high rate of cannibilazation for parts. OTOH, simpler crafts like B52s are still in service, and with updates are expected to serve for years to come...
*sigh*
The "choice" they've been trying to cut down is "Which basically identical clone game -- featuring near-exact copies of gameplay, art, name, and ALL OTHER aspects" can we buy?
It's not a question of, say, D&D vs Ultima (which are NOT that similar, really...). It's closer to directly ripping off somebody's book but changing the names and perhaps reordering a few clauses occasionally -- which is not permitted except by the author's explicit consent.
Maybe both good and bad karma should decay towards 0 over time. That's what's triggering the negative-rating default, right?
That would
a) let somebody who trolls for a while *chill*, start being a rational poster, and if he's not moderated down more, return to a default of 0
b) mean that just because somebody amasses a karma stockpile, doesn't mean that they can post in perpetuity at, say, 2 (given that moderators only have 5 pts per session, and don't seem to often use 'overrated') -- if they STOP posting things that are interesting / insightful / informative, they return to a more normal status.
Since when have people ever been peaceful?
At the moment, their are active (i.e. people dying) insurgencies and wars going on in South America, Africa, and Asia. Asia, Europe and North America supply much of the arms. This has been true for... pretty much the entire century. For prior centuries, replace with different conflicts.
Right now, as you read this, somebody is probably getting shot with a cheap AK-47 or clone (distributed worldwide during the Soviet era, and cloned by the PRC; a particular choice as it's mechanically simple and known to be VERY reliable in adverse conditiosn), being mutilated with a machete, or possibly blown up with a car bomb. Or, perhaps, simply starving to death when either a rebel movement or a government army seizes food shipments.
People will, almost certainly, remain warlike until they go extinct. After all, there are not only a finite number of resources on the planet, but also substantial power structures that conflict with each other. Consequently, it's quite anticipate conflicts and attempt to deter them before they occur, ala the reasoning behind nuclear arsenals -- which LOWER the chance of an enemy being willing to attack you, as long as you have a credible delivery system.
In this case, there are other nations which are more than capable of developing significant resources towards the militarization of space, such as Russia, if it can divert its attention from the Chechen situation and perhaps boost its economy with some oil contracts; and China, which has an aerospace program that *we* (read: Hughes, Lockheed, and the Depts of State and Commerce, IIRC) significantly boosted.... and both are known for belligerent positions versus the United States.
I think you attribute too much to MSFT. It's not just MSFT...
There's a realization that bear markets happen, and that there is NO guarantee of success.
There's a realization that many, MANY tech companies are going to go bankrupt soon, because they have neither the cash required to continue operating, nor the means to raise more from VCs tired of throwing capital down bottomless pits.
There's a realization that many of the "old economy" stocks have just as good fundamentals as they always did, while many of the newer tech companies don't.
Why should people invest in companies that don't have credible plans for profits in the forseeable future, when they can instead go for proven performers?
You obviously never opened a single economics textbook -- or had a rational thought about the matter in your entire life.
.com goes bankrupt as its CFO realizes that at some point, you NEED positive cash flow.
The money didn't *leave* the stock market. On paper, it vaporized. There's no fixed supply of on-paper money here, folks. Imagine, for instance, that CSCO suddenly gets nailed heavily for anti-trust. Or, say, your favorite
The value's gone. Hold 500 shares? They're non-sellable, of no value to anyone else -- or you. You didn't take your money elsewhere. You don't have their value. It simply vaporized.
Consequences? Unemployment, as people lose jobs when the companies find it more difficult to raise cash. Consumer spending may drop, when people realize that, hey, maybe the bull market WON'T continue forever. Sales then lower, hurting bottom lines further. New companies find it more difficult to lure people, because their stock looks less intriguing. Pension funds suffer BIG TIME as much of their value tends to be invested in equities. More people suffer when the income they counted on is supposed to come from funds that are now well below what their managers anticipated.
But, oh, that doesn't matter to you. Guess you must be livin' in a cabin in the Yukon, then.
Interesting nick, but an imprecise argument. Since it is THEIR creative work, they are not obligated to release it for free. They may, if they choose, release it under completely insane terms ranging from the wildly generous (artists pay "customers" to distribute CDs at no purchase cost) to extreme (to buy one of their CDs, you basically have to take out a second mortgage). Metallica chose to sell their music. That's their decision. There is no "right" for them to profit, because their is no obligation for anybody else to receive the music and pay for it. However, there is no right for anybody else to accept the music *without* paying, except under terms that Metallica has agreed do. You are only obligated to pay if you obtain the recording, so if nobody wants it, they aren't entitled to a profit.
How precisely does showing a firearm demonstrate instability and danger, by itself? If he's reasonably trained (some schools have rifle teams... and they DON'T go rampaging...), and generally has good judgement as to perceiving threats, he can make y'all safer. If some loon chooses to ram a Cadillac and run over kids (which HAS been done), the police likely aren't able to arrive in time. Consequently, the only feasible method of self-defense in such a situation is for somebody to be armed (as fists don't stop Cadillacs, and most folks wouldn't be willing to try to jump into a car that's running over people...).
Cops walk 'round with firearms. Most of 'em never even *draw*, let alone fire. It's not the showing itself that's a threat without additional context like simultaneously verbalizing threats against the pop.
Um, many conservatives do NOT have a problem with secular schools simply due to their secular nature.
When they impose polices like ZERO tolerance of "violence" (Having your picture taken on top of a field gun is not OK. Fighting back is never OK. Saying "bang bang" is never OK. Violent skits are never OK....), or encourage students to explain how words "feel" via "whole language" -- encouraging them to invent their own spellings, and essentially pushing EMPATHY, not EDUCATION, *then* there are severe problems.
Education is meant to be effective. It's not meant to boost all students to equal levels of happiness, or to claim equal levels of achievement. Something's wrong when whether students feel happy with themselves matters more than whether they can rationally assess historical events or comprehend mathematical proofs, or even make themselves understood in something at least properly reminiscent of acceptable, coherent language.
Ummm, in most countries judges are required to uphold the law, regardless of their own feelings or opinion, unless they can show legal basis as to why the law should be overturned. It's the legislative body's right and duty to maintain a consistent set of up-to-date legislation.
In the United States, for instance, judges would not get very far if they, oh, chose to ignore laws and freed defendants unless they could overturn a law on constitutional grounds. Pacifists judges would not be permitted to let defendants cheerfully evade the draft, for instance, were it ever to be revived, and the doctrine of "nullfication" (if memory serves, that's the correct term for the concept that African-American jurors should be lax on African-Americans in order to balance for alleged injustices prior and present) also has no basis in law. The judicial system is not the lawmaker.
So if German law states that ISPs are liable, and there are no legal grounds for overturning that, and their judges don't get much more latitude than most anywhere else, the fault really lies with the lawmakers and those who elected them.
Why not? They've got to be under less political pressure to hold back than the U.S. -- if Microsoft were to take a sudden hit, and (gasp!) suffer for a while, Washington State's luxury car dealers might be the worst hit. Or, more seriously, mostly U.S. citizens -- employers, stockholders, and dependent companies.
;-)
And it's another way for 'em to rub the US's nose in it s'more. "Look, those silly Americans can't enforce their own laws..." Which, if it brings a bit of shame to the (US) Gov't, can't be all that bad.
Hmmm. In the '97-'98, the Trial Lawyers Association gave $2,424,300 to federal candidates (86% to Dem., 13% to GOP); this election cycle, the number appears to be $812,000 (81% / 18%). Small amount to pay when the federal tobaccy case results in one law firm getting $1 billion in fees -- and that's a reduction from the original agreement.
Looks like allowing the lawsuits benefits candidates, as well. Like Richard A. Gephardt, $10k this cycle. Ditto for Martin Frost of TX., Patrick J. Kennedy of RI -- all this cycle.
Last cycle, soem contributions apparently reached $20k (Lois Capps, CA), and there were numerous $10k contributions.
Al Gore, as of 4/27/99 (i.e. OLD numbers) raised $1.4 million from lawyers; Bush, $747,000; Bradley, $646,000.
It's off-topic, but may be of interest to Slashdotters; as of that date, Gore had raised $63,875 from Time Warner (either PAC or directly from employees; this doesn't say). Donors giving $200+ must list their employer. TW also was the source of $46,400 for Bradley.
It's an election year. See the poll? If a remedy is taken that many voters disagree with, I wouldn't be surprised if they blam Mr. Gore, despite his lack of direct involvement (AFAIK).
Then, if MS takes another hit (one that lasts at least until November), and the MANY people that hold it continue to suffer, those folks as well will probably blame Bill -- of Bill, Al and Janet; not Bill, Paul and Steve. Folks suddenly blaming the Gov't for their economic issues have been known to vote in numbers...
Pretty rarely, actually.
Even on USENET, most RTFMs are due to people asking questions that often were asked and answered just 24 hours before, happen to appear MANY times in Deja, are answered in howtos with obvious names, and are featured prominently in user manuals as well.
'coz many new users don't bother to read a single document, it seems, before rushing off to CNET and using their Web interface to ask the same question 4+ groups.
In upper case...
With lots of exclamation points in the subject...
Which happens to be ">>> HELP ME PLZ!!! "...
And it has nothing to do with the fact that they're regularly spending mucho dinero on their border war with Eritrea, and that numerous 3rd world nations similarly prioritize either their own land grabs or assisting others in war over feeding their people? Others deal with constant civil war... Sudan, Rwanda, Angola (on/off), Zaire, Eritrea, Ethiopia...
India COULD be spending on, say, infrastructure. But you could probably bet your house on the idea that they'll raise their defense spending instead.
*sigh* Develop first, and later they should be able to easily afford nuclear weaponry if that's what floats their boat.
Only if the artist can push numerous units otherwise.
Say a CD goes platinum -- 1 million units. If the artist could sell ~10,590 CDs at the full price of $17.00, *plus* enough to recoup the costs of manufacturing, advertising and distribution -- THEN it's a ripoff.
But if the artist wouldn't make as much from the same record because he could not reach as large an audience with similar effort, then it might be termed a service, assuming that the artist's main utility is total net income and not per-unit gain.
Possibly a bad example. ISTR that some major gun manufacturers were successfully sued by a major city or two regarding crimes committed with their firearms. The plaintiffs' arguments was that the gun manufacturers were aware of "problem" dealers and did not do enough to screen them out, and that it marketed certain firearms with an eye towards criminals -- advertising such things as "fingerprint-resistant" grips. Legally, there's a lot of ugliness regarding the suing of manufacturers. Other cities are considering suing the gun manufacturers to recoup medical expenses incurred in treating victims. All this happens despite the fact that the end users are the folks doing the actual shooting...
I wouldn't be too surprised if the plaintiffs in this issue were able to persuade a jury that the Napster folks were negligent in combatting MP3 piracy, or that this was their primary focus. Juries do strange things sometimes.