Yes, I will chalk that bit of insight up there with the infamous, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
If you think the fact that iTunes is one of the few "legal" places to download music is the reason for its success in the United States, you might be right. Fortunately for them, it isn't.
Some things to ponder...
Via your Canadian "free" channels, how hard is it to find a COMPLETE album, with all of the correct song and album information, converted consistently well to digital file format, complete with album cover art embedded? Because on iTunes it is easy-as-fucking-pie.*
There is something to be said for being able to fire up iTunes, type in "Old Hundredth," sample the recordings available, find one I like, and buy it AND have it on my hard drive in a matter of 60 seconds.
To the contrary, courts have held that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.
What they really found, according to my reading of that case, is that they can't be held accountable to you or your family if they fail to protect you.
That doesn't mean their goal is not to protect you from violent offenders -- quite obviously it is.
However, I would feel safer if more law abiding citizens were armed, as it appears you would.
Perhaps you can point out the passage, I haven't found it yet.
In addition to the first sentence which I already pointed out, check Article I, Section 8:
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Perhaps you can point out the passage, I haven't found it yet.
Ummm, try reading the first sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I always thought that was a responsibility of the state. In this case it should be O.K. since the city is the one setting it up and the state prosecutes.
How did this become a federal issue?
Well I did mis-speak in that I was talking about both state and federal police being given the power to protect its citizens from violence from the Constitution.
However, since you asked "how did this become a federal issue," I will point out that it is never a problem for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to take over an investigation. Have you ever noticed that the FBI can come into any investigation and take it over? Why do you think that is? It is because the federal government
Okay, what do you call surreptitiously observing peoples activities, then?
Spying.
Video taping an unaware couple making out in a park isn't spying?
Do you know what surreptitiously means? "Obtained, done, or made by clandestine or stealthy means."
A video camera in plain view on a pole is not very stealthy. Perhaps if they hid it so no one knew the camera was there, that would be spying. Then you lose the benefit of deterrance -- people are less likely to commit crimes if they are being videotaped. I doubt part of this program is to hide these video cameras.
But now that I think about it, my emails and phone calls travel on wires over public property, so I guess it's no big deal if the government listens in on that either.
Ummm, they already do. That is much more a breach of privacy than some cameras setup in public spaces to track down shooters.
Because when government spies on innocent people...
These people are in public areas, presumably. No spying would be involved.
it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent
I could see this case if (1) they were actually 'spying' and (2) if it was humans doing it rather than a computer system defined specifically to look for ILLEGAL ACTIONS, and the system has proven to be ACCURATE.
It is illegal to fire a weapon in the city. I don't see a problem with a system designed to report a fired weapon, record video of the person firing it, and calling for help.
Protecting citizens from violence is one of the very few jobs the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to be doing, according to the Constitution.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
I wasn't aware that this system was finding anyone guilty? That is still done in a court of law.
So it may be difficult to fool it unless you can also simulate the whole shooting sequence
But why would you want to fool it into thinking you fired a shot? So you can be arrested for shooting a gun? Surely people would rather try NOT to get picked up by the device.
I guess FPS game developers can use one of these to create realistic gunshot sounds.
Hmmm I think it would be easier just to do what they already do, and simply record real gunshot sounds.:-)
I can't believe the government is funding public libraries, they're taking money from commercial bookstores.
I agree that the government shouldn't fund libraries, at least not the federal or state government. Local cities can pay for their public libraries with taxes, either property taxes or user fees. If you don't like it, move to another city. Most city libraries are already done this way. Ever paid a late fee, a membership fee, or property taxes?
And the streets! Woah, they should let go of city maintenance and allow the commercial road surfacing companies to fill in the potholes on the street
Ever heard of toll roads? Private roads? Adopted roads? etc. You act is if the idea of non-government managed roads is alien or unworkable. These roads are often a thousand times better than government-managed roads, for the same reasons everything else run by the government sucks -- no oversight, and no impetus to do better.
Why is the police allowed to operate, don't they know that they're taking money away from commercial security providers?
Because the Constitution mandates the government should protect civilians from violent offenders and uphold the law.
I see you'd rather live in a nanny state... how sad.
What about small communities that are not lucrative market for Verizon etc?
Then one of the following is true about those communities:
1. They have enough people in the area that want WiFi, are willing to pay for it, and a company (maybe Verizon, maybe a smaller company) will setup shop and provide the service.
OR
2. They don't have enough people in the area willing to pay for it, so why should the rest of the residents have to foot the bill for it (as would happen if their city decided to do it and make them pay for it through taxes).
Unless you live in a major metro area, the chances of you having wired phone access would be even lower than your chances of cell access if it hadn't been for the government putting down the cash to install a phone network.
In this case you have the choice of living in a rural area where you might not have access to as much technology, or living in a metro area.
I don't mind the private sector but i do think that broadband providers should have to do an all or nothing approach. Making sure that all their customers have DSL availability.
Why on Earth would you think it's a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to tell a BUSINESS how to do whatever it does? That is incredibly short-sighted and anti-freedom.
How about the companies decide how to roll out the services they're going to provide, and the people decide which company gets their business, and the company that provides the best service wins?
you still really think that Democrats control the FCC? That's asinine.
No, I don't still think that since I never said that. It is a fact that the FCC is bipartisan.
Besides, the fines are chump change. The media exposure is far more valuable.
If the FCC didn't have as much power as it does, there would be no fines, and there would be no media coverage.
It sounds like we're both against what the FCC does, but for some reason you keep trying to pin it on Republicans.
The sad fact is this country is filled with puritans, and until that is thoroughly disposed of, we'll still have this problem regardless of which party has control, because as long as the FCC exists, there will be people lodging complaints with them.
We are making progress, though. Thirty years ago you couldn't have gotten away with half the shit we say and do on TV/radio nowadays.
and modern day conservatives since reagan want the government to borrow more and more money.
Absolutely. Good thing I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian.
like the patriot act, definetly supported more by the right then the left.
Absolutely.
anti-corp is neither liberal nor conservative, but it tends to be anti-aristocratic.
I disagree. Take a look at all the political parties. The ones that tend to be anti-corporation and anti-business are on the left. If you care to refute this, please point out a right-leaning party that is either anti-business or anti-corporation.
If you want to hear about naivety, listen to this.
There are these people that give the government more and more of their money, and then are surprised each time when the government finds new and stupid ways to waste it.
These people give the government more power every day, and then turn around and complain because that power is not used in ways they wish. They keep doing this over and over and expect a different result -- insanity.
I got in a car accident about 6 years ago, and was fine except for a few bruises, although the car fliped end over end. I was aminor at the time, and the police forced me into an ambulance before my mom got there.
So, assuming your local police are not a private force, the government forced you into an ambulance? Just want to make sure we're clear, here.
anyone without health insurance would be bankrupt in an accident like that.
Why would a person not have health insurance unless they had no money to begin with? In this situation, this is where charities come into play. To help people who need help. That person would also likely be able to pay the hospital back over time, or take out a loan and pay the loan back over time. But the root problem is that person is not working or able to afford insurance.
I would much rather see my taxes go to fund more public health efforts and lost cost interent than to subsidize big corporations.
The problem is you will never be able to choose how your taxes are spent. Therefore, what you sound like you really want to do, is support local charities that help people who need money to cover accidents like what happened to you. Why is your first choice, though, to give the money to the government? Have they shown you that they are good at spending money or something? Nope.
Governemnt is a nessecary evil. no cou.ld never get a private compnay to build higways or any other public infastructure without the price being prohibitve for most people.
This is false. There are private companies that have already done this in areas in America. The roads are supported by tolls.
one single person (because that's what corporations are under the law) can have so much power because they have money.
I am assuming you're a liberal, because you seem to be anti-corporation, and that is generally from that side of the spectrum. Excuse me if I'm wrong, however, assuming this, I will make my point:
The problem is not that the corporations have this much influence on politics, it is that the government (the Congress) has been abusing their power to write laws that abridge our freedoms.
The reason I commented about your assumed liberalism is that liberals tend to want to give the government more and more money via taxes. A rich government is a powerful government.
If the government stuck to the constitution and just worried about enforcing the rights laid out in the constitution, protecting the country from military attack, and locking up violent criminals, we'd not be having a conversation about how much influence corporations have on the process. They'd have the same influence as me and you because THE CONGRESS WOULD NOT BE CREATING ALL THESE FUCKING LAWS.
Thank you for the perfect example of why government sucks. You only think those services are free and provided by the government because you don't pay the taxes that cover the cost!
You're also implying that all police forces are government-based. False.
Next you'll tell me the government provides us with free schooling. Ignore that I pay for it with my property taxes, and that I have no children attending those schools.
Then you'll be telling me that government provides us with the ambulances that get you to the hospital. In most areas, this is false, those are actually run by private companies, who then bill the hospitals, who then bill you. Seems to work out OK. How many lives do ambulances/paramedics save every year? Shit, and they're not even run by the government. How can that be?
The private companies can compete with the police forces and the firemen, because there are areas of the country that have private police and fire forces.
And I would think the criteria should be: "can private industry provide this service in a more economical way for those that desire to use it, without increasing taxes on those that don't wish to use it, nor giving free access to those that don't pay for it?"
Then again, that kind of talk doesn't let politicians buy votes.
I believe this is wrong also, although I have not verified this yet for myself. It is my understanding that the version that is backed up is already unlocked.
Wrong. Right-click on the game in steam, select Backup Game, and it will create nicely formatted binary files that you can burn to CDROM or DVDROM. They'll even format the sizes to fit either format as well as possible.
If Valve goes away, or the Steam servers die, or they decide to drop support for HL2 in a few years what then?
What then? Why, I continue playing my copy of Half-Life 2. Since I unlocked it, I disabled internet access to steam, and Half-Life 2 still works without a hitch.
Well, at least after they release that fucking patch tonight it will really be "without a hitch."
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't expect the store to be up for long."
Yes, I will chalk that bit of insight up there with the infamous, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
If you think the fact that iTunes is one of the few "legal" places to download music is the reason for its success in the United States, you might be right. Fortunately for them, it isn't.
Some things to ponder...
Via your Canadian "free" channels, how hard is it to find a COMPLETE album, with all of the correct song and album information, converted consistently well to digital file format, complete with album cover art embedded? Because on iTunes it is easy-as-fucking-pie.*
There is something to be said for being able to fire up iTunes, type in "Old Hundredth," sample the recordings available, find one I like, and buy it AND have it on my hard drive in a matter of 60 seconds.
* Not to be confused with pie-fucking.
I wanna know- does it have DRM?
That doesn't really matter. AAC doesn't "have" DRM either, but that doesn't stop Apple from using DRM with AAC (aka FairPlay).
It really depends on the company distributing the MP3.
The more relevant question is does it have licensing fees and patents encumbering it? I'm sure it does. Though that never really stopped MP3.
I can already tell if it's light or dark outside by looking.
What time is it???????
To the contrary, courts have held that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.
What they really found, according to my reading of that case, is that they can't be held accountable to you or your family if they fail to protect you.
That doesn't mean their goal is not to protect you from violent offenders -- quite obviously it is.
However, I would feel safer if more law abiding citizens were armed, as it appears you would.
In addition to the first sentence which I already pointed out, check Article I, Section 8:
Perhaps you can point out the passage, I haven't found it yet.
Ummm, try reading the first sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I always thought that was a responsibility of the state. In this case it should be O.K. since the city is the one setting it up and the state prosecutes.
How did this become a federal issue?
Well I did mis-speak in that I was talking about both state and federal police being given the power to protect its citizens from violence from the Constitution.
However, since you asked "how did this become a federal issue," I will point out that it is never a problem for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to take over an investigation.
Have you ever noticed that the FBI can come into any investigation and take it over? Why do you think that is? It is because the federal government
Okay, what do you call surreptitiously observing peoples activities, then?
Spying.
Video taping an unaware couple making out in a park isn't spying?
Do you know what surreptitiously means? "Obtained, done, or made by clandestine or stealthy means."
A video camera in plain view on a pole is not very stealthy. Perhaps if they hid it so no one knew the camera was there, that would be spying. Then you lose the benefit of deterrance -- people are less likely to commit crimes if they are being videotaped. I doubt part of this program is to hide these video cameras.
But now that I think about it, my emails and phone calls travel on wires over public property, so I guess it's no big deal if the government listens in on that either.
Ummm, they already do. That is much more a breach of privacy than some cameras setup in public spaces to track down shooters.
Because when government spies on innocent people...
These people are in public areas, presumably. No spying would be involved.
it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent
I could see this case if (1) they were actually 'spying' and (2) if it was humans doing it rather than a computer system defined specifically to look for ILLEGAL ACTIONS, and the system has proven to be ACCURATE.
It is illegal to fire a weapon in the city. I don't see a problem with a system designed to report a fired weapon, record video of the person firing it, and calling for help.
Protecting citizens from violence is one of the very few jobs the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to be doing, according to the Constitution.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
I wasn't aware that this system was finding anyone guilty? That is still done in a court of law.
So it may be difficult to fool it unless you can also simulate the whole shooting sequence
:-)
But why would you want to fool it into thinking you fired a shot? So you can be arrested for shooting a gun? Surely people would rather try NOT to get picked up by the device.
I guess FPS game developers can use one of these to create realistic gunshot sounds.
Hmmm I think it would be easier just to do what they already do, and simply record real gunshot sounds.
I can't believe the government is funding public libraries, they're taking money from commercial bookstores.
I agree that the government shouldn't fund libraries, at least not the federal or state government. Local cities can pay for their public libraries with taxes, either property taxes or user fees. If you don't like it, move to another city. Most city libraries are already done this way. Ever paid a late fee, a membership fee, or property taxes?
And the streets! Woah, they should let go of city maintenance and allow the commercial road surfacing companies to fill in the potholes on the street
Ever heard of toll roads? Private roads? Adopted roads? etc. You act is if the idea of non-government managed roads is alien or unworkable. These roads are often a thousand times better than government-managed roads, for the same reasons everything else run by the government sucks -- no oversight, and no impetus to do better.
Why is the police allowed to operate, don't they know that they're taking money away from commercial security providers?
Because the Constitution mandates the government should protect civilians from violent offenders and uphold the law.
I see you'd rather live in a nanny state... how sad.
What about small communities that are not lucrative market for Verizon etc?
Then one of the following is true about those communities:
1. They have enough people in the area that want WiFi, are willing to pay for it, and a company (maybe Verizon, maybe a smaller company) will setup shop and provide the service.
OR
2. They don't have enough people in the area willing to pay for it, so why should the rest of the residents have to foot the bill for it (as would happen if their city decided to do it and make them pay for it through taxes).
Unless you live in a major metro area, the chances of you having wired phone access would be even lower than your chances of cell access if it hadn't been for the government putting down the cash to install a phone network.
In this case you have the choice of living in a rural area where you might not have access to as much technology, or living in a metro area.
I don't mind the private sector but i do think that broadband providers should have to do an all or nothing approach. Making sure that all their customers have DSL availability.
Why on Earth would you think it's a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to tell a BUSINESS how to do whatever it does? That is incredibly short-sighted and anti-freedom.
How about the companies decide how to roll out the services they're going to provide, and the people decide which company gets their business, and the company that provides the best service wins?
you still really think that Democrats control the FCC? That's asinine.
No, I don't still think that since I never said that. It is a fact that the FCC is bipartisan.
Besides, the fines are chump change. The media exposure is far more valuable.
If the FCC didn't have as much power as it does, there would be no fines, and there would be no media coverage.
It sounds like we're both against what the FCC does, but for some reason you keep trying to pin it on Republicans.
The sad fact is this country is filled with puritans, and until that is thoroughly disposed of, we'll still have this problem regardless of which party has control, because as long as the FCC exists, there will be people lodging complaints with them.
We are making progress, though. Thirty years ago you couldn't have gotten away with half the shit we say and do on TV/radio nowadays.
Of course, they were saying the same thing about Powell before the election.
Who was saying that? Powell has said from the beginning that he was serving only one term.
-1 Flamebait
The increased fines were levied by the Democrat on the FCC's board, not Michael Powell.
Controlling the airwaves is a bipartisan "effort."
This analogy is bad.
If you read my post, I am neither blaming the gun nor the ones pulling the trigger. Rather, I am saying let's replace the gun with a toothpick.
and modern day conservatives since reagan want the government to borrow more and more money.
Absolutely. Good thing I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian.
like the patriot act, definetly supported more by the right then the left.
Absolutely.
anti-corp is neither liberal nor conservative, but it tends to be anti-aristocratic.
I disagree. Take a look at all the political parties. The ones that tend to be anti-corporation and anti-business are on the left. If you care to refute this, please point out a right-leaning party that is either anti-business or anti-corporation.
I think you guys are naive as fuck.
If you want to hear about naivety, listen to this.
There are these people that give the government more and more of their money, and then are surprised each time when the government finds new and stupid ways to waste it.
These people give the government more power every day, and then turn around and complain because that power is not used in ways they wish. They keep doing this over and over and expect a different result -- insanity.
I got in a car accident about 6 years ago, and was fine except for a few bruises, although the car fliped end over end. I was aminor at the time, and the police forced me into an ambulance before my mom got there.
So, assuming your local police are not a private force, the government forced you into an ambulance? Just want to make sure we're clear, here.
anyone without health insurance would be bankrupt in an accident like that.
Why would a person not have health insurance unless they had no money to begin with? In this situation, this is where charities come into play. To help people who need help. That person would also likely be able to pay the hospital back over time, or take out a loan and pay the loan back over time. But the root problem is that person is not working or able to afford insurance.
I would much rather see my taxes go to fund more public health efforts and lost cost interent than to subsidize big corporations.
The problem is you will never be able to choose how your taxes are spent. Therefore, what you sound like you really want to do, is support local charities that help people who need money to cover accidents like what happened to you. Why is your first choice, though, to give the money to the government? Have they shown you that they are good at spending money or something? Nope.
Governemnt is a nessecary evil. no cou.ld never get a private compnay to build higways or any other public infastructure without the price being prohibitve for most people.
This is false. There are private companies that have already done this in areas in America. The roads are supported by tolls.
one single person (because that's what corporations are under the law) can have so much power because they have money.
I am assuming you're a liberal, because you seem to be anti-corporation, and that is generally from that side of the spectrum. Excuse me if I'm wrong, however, assuming this, I will make my point:
The problem is not that the corporations have this much influence on politics, it is that the government (the Congress) has been abusing their power to write laws that abridge our freedoms.
The reason I commented about your assumed liberalism is that liberals tend to want to give the government more and more money via taxes. A rich government is a powerful government.
If the government stuck to the constitution and just worried about enforcing the rights laid out in the constitution, protecting the country from military attack, and locking up violent criminals, we'd not be having a conversation about how much influence corporations have on the process. They'd have the same influence as me and you because THE CONGRESS WOULD NOT BE CREATING ALL THESE FUCKING LAWS.
Thank you for the perfect example of why government sucks. You only think those services are free and provided by the government because you don't pay the taxes that cover the cost!
You're also implying that all police forces are government-based. False.
Next you'll tell me the government provides us with free schooling. Ignore that I pay for it with my property taxes, and that I have no children attending those schools.
Then you'll be telling me that government provides us with the ambulances that get you to the hospital. In most areas, this is false, those are actually run by private companies, who then bill the hospitals, who then bill you. Seems to work out OK. How many lives do ambulances/paramedics save every year? Shit, and they're not even run by the government. How can that be?
The private companies can compete with the police forces and the firemen, because there are areas of the country that have private police and fire forces.
Read.
And I would think the criteria should be: "can private industry provide this service in a more economical way for those that desire to use it, without increasing taxes on those that don't wish to use it, nor giving free access to those that don't pay for it?"
Then again, that kind of talk doesn't let politicians buy votes.
I believe this is wrong also, although I have not verified this yet for myself. It is my understanding that the version that is backed up is already unlocked.
Wrong. Right-click on the game in steam, select Backup Game, and it will create nicely formatted binary files that you can burn to CDROM or DVDROM. They'll even format the sizes to fit either format as well as possible.
If Valve goes away, or the Steam servers die, or they decide to drop support for HL2 in a few years what then?
What then? Why, I continue playing my copy of Half-Life 2. Since I unlocked it, I disabled internet access to steam, and Half-Life 2 still works without a hitch.
Well, at least after they release that fucking patch tonight it will really be "without a hitch."
But you know what I mean.