I was telling my friends. "If you were trying to get a loan, and they gave you before you signed the promisary note - would you still sign it?" He became President and but didn't make his promise until after the fact.
I was expecting a big flicking of two fingers.
Now the real question - did Bush's staff remvoe the "H"s from the keyboards in the White House?
The whole thing is disgusting to me though. We're not living in any semblance of a free country when your neighbors can tell you what things you can and can't have on your property simply because they don't look pretty.
Disclaimer: I think there can be a place for solar panels (roof)
As for your other comments - if you live in a community (townhouse association, etc) you have to abide by there rules - which are voted on by the members of the community. Otherwise you can not move there, or move out. It's in the rules/regulations contract which you signed before you bought the place.
Now on the non-community places - if you say do something in front of your house and it reduces my property value - are you going to pay me for that loss of capital? Because if not your freedoms do not have a right to infringe on my freedoms.
You won't have to worry about electricity after 2010....estate tax has a morritoreum that year. If you die then your next-of-kin will get your money tax free...so yea, plan on not living beyond 2010..unless you have no next-of-kin then you are fine!
Considering he was the vice-president then no. For him to hop on a 747 would cause a lot of problems security wise. Each customer, service worker, fuel attendant, etc would have to be screened and background checked (moreso then normal). The plane would need to be specially monitored. The amount of work involved would cause too many problems - hence a private plane.
As for his costs - yea he may have a huge house and that raises the costs - but guess what - my parents live in a city house and their heating/ac bill (central heat/air) comes to about 400/month. They don't keep it crazy hot or cold, average (68-74). And they turn everything down if they plan on not being home for a period of time.
I live in a one bedroom condo and pay about $150/month in electricity (i have no gas/oil...heat, kitchen, lights all on electricity). My heaters are wall-mounted (5 foot wide ac/heaters) that i ONLY use when I am home, and actually I keep them off when I sleep (I use a small space heater and two blankets - I like it cool).
Stuff is expensive these days. And if Gore lives in CA then its really expensive for him (not sure where he lives).
People talk about single solutions but that is not the answer. It will be a blended solution. It will be a combination of solar, natural gas, wind, water, AND nuclear. In Israel, ever since I can remember (80s) each house/condo has solar panels to help heat water tanks...which are also sitting under the sun. Wind turbines are in various areas (Atlantic City NJ has about 5 or 6 MAJOR wind mills). Water turbines can work well. In California they created these water turbines that are hidden into the cliffsides. So when surf hits it water is sent up (and back down) to generate electricity.
But all of those will not be enough. We also need to supplant that with natural gas and nuclear energy. We also need to find ways to recycle spent nuclear fuel and convert it to useful energy...put it this way if that spent fuel is SO radioactive (meaning having lots of energy) then we could harnass it - we just don't know how (i think).
Until we get warp power - a blended solution will be needed - but it can work.
Most of us have no problem with WHY the RIAA is doing the things it does -- our problem is the 'how'.
Then why do a lof of/.'ers justify their reasoning for d/ling stuff without paying for it? Why do a lot of/.'ers talk about it is not wrong to take music without paying for it because it doesn't deprive the creator (or ip owners) with a "physical" copy?
No the/. crew has as much problem with the WHY and the HOW. BTW, if the RIAA was that flagrant about judges rulings then more judges would be throwing down the gauntlet...they aren't though. So while we may get up in arms apparantly those judges are not...and judges tend to get really annoyed when people do not obey their decrees.
This study finally explains why Starbucks is so successful. Its products create an illusion in their customers that they are normal human beings with some real life worth living. Once these Starbucks addicts stay away from caffeine they are overwhelmed by their own sense of inadequacy and rush back to the store for another hit.
Really? Do you, as a/.'er, really want to make fun of people not having lives worth living? I mean talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Now I'm off to fight the gremlin that lives in the supply closet. He keeps stealing my stapler!
See too much coffee. That is actually the midget coworker of yours who is trying to get his stapler back after you stole it two weeks ago. Man you need some sensitivity classes.
I have not seen any one saying there is something "wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property".
No they just say "omfg this music sucks so there is no way i am going to pay for it" then they go download it. Wait a moment..they do, when they bash the RIAA for representing the copyright owners who employ them.
Do the judges have jurisdiction outside of Austin, or Texas? I am no lawyer but I am pretty sure that a judge in one jurisdiction does not have control in another. It sounded, from the article, these were Austin Judges. So there decrees are only valid in Austin (maybe Texas if they have such jurisdiction) - but not say in RI.
How about there being some music worth paying money for to start with?
If it sucks that bad you can't be bothered to pay $0.99 for it then why bother downloading it, scanning it for viruses, and testing it for quality? Your time has got to be worth more the $0.99 for crappy music?
The fact that it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. Copyright law's function doesn't even vaguely resemble it's original intent and is now basically a government granted monopoly on culture. Ignoring unjust copyright law's is just civil disobedience and I say hiza!
Do you really want to attach Brittney Spears music to culture? The laws are not unjust - they are fair - you just don't like them. I am pretty sure murderers don't like jail either - I guess we should say that murderers are just doing a little bit of civil disobedience?
You are not being denied life libery and happiness by being told you have to pay for someone elses efforts. On the otherhand you are denying somebody money by taking their efforts and not paying them for it. If you want culture go to the museum or library. So I say "Ignoring unlawful behavior is just criminal and I say hiza!"
Here are solutions for your justification
1) Go to amazon or other similar sites. They allow you to listen to a 15 second clip of the song. It's legal
2) Use reputable services like iTunes, Napster (pay model), etc.
I am willing to bet you probably heard the music, or the bands previous songs, before you went to acquire this new song so you know what you are getting into. If it's a really small band they probably have some other avenues to get their music samples to you - if not flat out offering free downloads from their site.
Anyone using your reasons is making justification excuses. In the end, EVEN if you are correct that you have no other choice, it is still not your RIGHT to decide how to get the music. It is their property not yours.
BTW, it doesn't matter if you bought 1000 cd's yesterday. If you got one song illegaly then you are wrong. It's like saying "I donate money, and time to help out the sick, homeless, and needy - so it's OK that i killed someone yesterday. The goodness I did before that cancels it out." - that's not how life works.
It's not a myth. If I want music X and I can get it for free w/o recourse I will take it for free. If, however, there is recourse (going to jail, paying fines, etc) then I will think "hmm maybe I should go spend the 1.5 on iTunes, or record it from the radio". So it is a deterrent. Maybe not to some people who firmly believe they are safe on the anonymous internet...but some people are not willing to take that chance. It works, maybe not on the standard/. crew, but we are a VERY small minority.
On a side note - Evanesence (sp) did a great job by flooding the internet with the entire CD of their collection but put a weird sound in the middle of the song. They did such a good job that it was almost impossible to not download that copy of it. So you could listen to that modified version, but if you wanted the untainted copy you would have to buy it or keep searching. So spend the $15 for the CD or spend hours downloading AND listening through each iterration of what you got and HOPE it was a clean copy.
If you are incorporated in one state and do business in another state you have to obey both state's laws. But you also open yourself up to the worst (in your perspective) of the states laws. So basically the RIAA would not be able to serve you in Austin, but they could in Providence (or wherever you operate from).
Typically it is also where the act occured that they can serve you. So if you are in Austin but work from Providence then they will serve you in Providence. Otherwise every business would incorporate in the most favorable states (I believe that is Florida since you cannot be sued into bankruptcy in Florida). You also see similar situations with taxes. If you live close to the state border (e.g. SE Pennyslvania) and you go to buy a car in Delaware (tax free shopping) you still have to pay Pennsylvania taxes on the car because you live in Pennsylvania.
1) Because it is a deterrent (there are people who won't d/l due to risk, people who won't u/l due to risk, and organizations such as Napster that had their original model shut down for a legit model
2) Because they may not collect $1,000,000 from the defendent but collecting $1,000 will still hurt some peoples wallets - and enough to get some parent to ground their kid for a year or five
3) Because you need to keep protecting your IP or risk setting precedent that you are OK with people stealing your IP
I enjoy people's arguments that pirating is not stealing because it does not deprive anyone of the material (meaning they still have their own copy of the music). Stealing of information by copying has been punishable by law for many years - way before the Internet. It is a flawed argument to think stealing information is not a bad thing. Information theft is big business and very punishible. Many companies have their entire business model setup on proprietary information - the people here a/. may not like this - but guess what - the people here at/. were not the ones investing tons of money/time into those soft-products. Also, that nice new fancy drug that you or your family/loved ones are taking to save their lives...that formula is most likely (for new drugs) a closely held secret by a company that spent many millions in R&D. Without these copyright protections said companies would have no reason to create life-saving medicines. Just like drug makers have to protect their recipies from international infringements so do people who want to profit from their music.
Nothing wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property.
In November, 2004, several judges in the federal court in Austin, Texas, got together and ordered the RIAA to cease and desist from its practice of joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case. The RIAA blithely ignored the order, and continued the illegal practice for the next four years, but steering clear of Austin.
Am I missing something? So what made this illegal? If they didn't do the act in Austin then they didn't do anything illegal. I am no fan of RIAA but to call something illegal when it is not is wrong. They complied with the judges wishes and stopped doing what they were doing in the Judge's jurisdiction.
But they can ask you to be discrete about it - and you should show some discretion.
I am down for women being naked, but I understand not everyone wants to see that. It's not appropriate in public. Maybe you don't get offended by it, but a lot of people do. So why do something to deliberately offend people? You are not being repressed so it is not a statement of civil rights. Being tactful is not a crime.
Breast feeding in public is required for your baby to eat. That is fine - though you should be discrete - you don't have to be totally topless. You can keep yourself covered enough that nobody can see your chest unless they are at an acute angle.
As for posting the picture on the site - guess what, it is not required for your baby to survive to post a picture on the site. You are doing it for a personal reason. Well that is fine - except Facebook is owned by someone(s) and they don't want it. If you do not like it you can delete your account. By not respecting their rules you are in violation of their TOC and you are wrong.
Just because your work area does not involve SQL does not mean it is not commonplace. Small/medium businesses actually prefer to not use SQL because of the expense of setting everythign up (Windows server, SQL Server Enterprise, then probably Exchange to have a good e-mail system) but they use it (I did work for a company that does custom software for small/medium businsses). TO be honest the owners/managers didn't care about the programming language - only the price tag. Then again...spending $300,000 on custom software makes the $20,000 investment in MS server products not that painful. Its also buried in the price "Yes to make you a custom app will cost $320,000 for everything."
For a business that gets custom software the added expense of the MS products is not that much...the custom software is way more expensive.
I now work for a huge company - and yea.net and sql all the way with the exception of legacy apps - but they are being re-written.
Slashdot Mirror
I was telling my friends. "If you were trying to get a loan, and they gave you before you signed the promisary note - would you still sign it?" He became President and but didn't make his promise until after the fact. I was expecting a big flicking of two fingers. Now the real question - did Bush's staff remvoe the "H"s from the keyboards in the White House?
The whole thing is disgusting to me though. We're not living in any semblance of a free country when your neighbors can tell you what things you can and can't have on your property simply because they don't look pretty.
Disclaimer: I think there can be a place for solar panels (roof)
As for your other comments - if you live in a community (townhouse association, etc) you have to abide by there rules - which are voted on by the members of the community. Otherwise you can not move there, or move out. It's in the rules/regulations contract which you signed before you bought the place.
Now on the non-community places - if you say do something in front of your house and it reduces my property value - are you going to pay me for that loss of capital? Because if not your freedoms do not have a right to infringe on my freedoms.
Dang blast it, it's nearly 2010
You won't have to worry about electricity after 2010....estate tax has a morritoreum that year. If you die then your next-of-kin will get your money tax free...so yea, plan on not living beyond 2010..unless you have no next-of-kin then you are fine!
Considering he was the vice-president then no. For him to hop on a 747 would cause a lot of problems security wise. Each customer, service worker, fuel attendant, etc would have to be screened and background checked (moreso then normal). The plane would need to be specially monitored. The amount of work involved would cause too many problems - hence a private plane.
As for his costs - yea he may have a huge house and that raises the costs - but guess what - my parents live in a city house and their heating/ac bill (central heat/air) comes to about 400/month. They don't keep it crazy hot or cold, average (68-74). And they turn everything down if they plan on not being home for a period of time.
I live in a one bedroom condo and pay about $150/month in electricity (i have no gas/oil...heat, kitchen, lights all on electricity). My heaters are wall-mounted (5 foot wide ac/heaters) that i ONLY use when I am home, and actually I keep them off when I sleep (I use a small space heater and two blankets - I like it cool).
Stuff is expensive these days. And if Gore lives in CA then its really expensive for him (not sure where he lives).
People talk about single solutions but that is not the answer. It will be a blended solution. It will be a combination of solar, natural gas, wind, water, AND nuclear. In Israel, ever since I can remember (80s) each house/condo has solar panels to help heat water tanks...which are also sitting under the sun. Wind turbines are in various areas (Atlantic City NJ has about 5 or 6 MAJOR wind mills). Water turbines can work well. In California they created these water turbines that are hidden into the cliffsides. So when surf hits it water is sent up (and back down) to generate electricity.
But all of those will not be enough. We also need to supplant that with natural gas and nuclear energy. We also need to find ways to recycle spent nuclear fuel and convert it to useful energy...put it this way if that spent fuel is SO radioactive (meaning having lots of energy) then we could harnass it - we just don't know how (i think).
Until we get warp power - a blended solution will be needed - but it can work.
Most of us have no problem with WHY the RIAA is doing the things it does -- our problem is the 'how'.
Then why do a lof of /.'ers justify their reasoning for d/ling stuff without paying for it? Why do a lot of /.'ers talk about it is not wrong to take music without paying for it because it doesn't deprive the creator (or ip owners) with a "physical" copy?
/. crew has as much problem with the WHY and the HOW. BTW, if the RIAA was that flagrant about judges rulings then more judges would be throwing down the gauntlet...they aren't though. So while we may get up in arms apparantly those judges are not...and judges tend to get really annoyed when people do not obey their decrees.
No the
This study finally explains why Starbucks is so successful. Its products create an illusion in their customers that they are normal human beings with some real life worth living. Once these Starbucks addicts stay away from caffeine they are overwhelmed by their own sense of inadequacy and rush back to the store for another hit.
Really? Do you, as a /.'er, really want to make fun of people not having lives worth living? I mean talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Now I'm off to fight the gremlin that lives in the supply closet. He keeps stealing my stapler!
See too much coffee. That is actually the midget coworker of yours who is trying to get his stapler back after you stole it two weeks ago. Man you need some sensitivity classes.
as well as making people think that others are "out to get them".
Explains the /. crew. Stop drinking the Dew and you won't need your tinfoil hats anymore. Or is this a gov't ploy to weaken your defenses!
I have not seen any one saying there is something "wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property".
No they just say "omfg this music sucks so there is no way i am going to pay for it" then they go download it. Wait a moment..they do, when they bash the RIAA for representing the copyright owners who employ them.
Do the judges have jurisdiction outside of Austin, or Texas? I am no lawyer but I am pretty sure that a judge in one jurisdiction does not have control in another. It sounded, from the article, these were Austin Judges. So there decrees are only valid in Austin (maybe Texas if they have such jurisdiction) - but not say in RI.
How about there being some music worth paying money for to start with?
If it sucks that bad you can't be bothered to pay $0.99 for it then why bother downloading it, scanning it for viruses, and testing it for quality? Your time has got to be worth more the $0.99 for crappy music?
Earth to Pirating Morons: STOP STEALING...
The fact that it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. Copyright law's function doesn't even vaguely resemble it's original intent and is now basically a government granted monopoly on culture. Ignoring unjust copyright law's is just civil disobedience and I say hiza!
Do you really want to attach Brittney Spears music to culture? The laws are not unjust - they are fair - you just don't like them. I am pretty sure murderers don't like jail either - I guess we should say that murderers are just doing a little bit of civil disobedience?
You are not being denied life libery and happiness by being told you have to pay for someone elses efforts. On the otherhand you are denying somebody money by taking their efforts and not paying them for it. If you want culture go to the museum or library. So I say "Ignoring unlawful behavior is just criminal and I say hiza!"
Here are solutions for your justification
1) Go to amazon or other similar sites. They allow you to listen to a 15 second clip of the song. It's legal
2) Use reputable services like iTunes, Napster (pay model), etc.
I am willing to bet you probably heard the music, or the bands previous songs, before you went to acquire this new song so you know what you are getting into. If it's a really small band they probably have some other avenues to get their music samples to you - if not flat out offering free downloads from their site.
Anyone using your reasons is making justification excuses. In the end, EVEN if you are correct that you have no other choice, it is still not your RIGHT to decide how to get the music. It is their property not yours.
BTW, it doesn't matter if you bought 1000 cd's yesterday. If you got one song illegaly then you are wrong. It's like saying "I donate money, and time to help out the sick, homeless, and needy - so it's OK that i killed someone yesterday. The goodness I did before that cancels it out." - that's not how life works.
1) piracy hurts copyright holders
/. crew, but we are a VERY small minority.
It's not a myth. If I want music X and I can get it for free w/o recourse I will take it for free. If, however, there is recourse (going to jail, paying fines, etc) then I will think "hmm maybe I should go spend the 1.5 on iTunes, or record it from the radio". So it is a deterrent. Maybe not to some people who firmly believe they are safe on the anonymous internet...but some people are not willing to take that chance. It works, maybe not on the standard
On a side note - Evanesence (sp) did a great job by flooding the internet with the entire CD of their collection but put a weird sound in the middle of the song. They did such a good job that it was almost impossible to not download that copy of it. So you could listen to that modified version, but if you wanted the untainted copy you would have to buy it or keep searching. So spend the $15 for the CD or spend hours downloading AND listening through each iterration of what you got and HOPE it was a clean copy.
If you are incorporated in one state and do business in another state you have to obey both state's laws. But you also open yourself up to the worst (in your perspective) of the states laws. So basically the RIAA would not be able to serve you in Austin, but they could in Providence (or wherever you operate from).
Typically it is also where the act occured that they can serve you. So if you are in Austin but work from Providence then they will serve you in Providence. Otherwise every business would incorporate in the most favorable states (I believe that is Florida since you cannot be sued into bankruptcy in Florida). You also see similar situations with taxes. If you live close to the state border (e.g. SE Pennyslvania) and you go to buy a car in Delaware (tax free shopping) you still have to pay Pennsylvania taxes on the car because you live in Pennsylvania.
No, wait, on second thought, he probably realized they were slashdotters and figured it was perfectly save.
Or that they were lying, and no way a pre-beauty queen would invite them. Cop probably thought "these kids, it's not april fools".
1) Because it is a deterrent (there are people who won't d/l due to risk, people who won't u/l due to risk, and organizations such as Napster that had their original model shut down for a legit model
2) Because they may not collect $1,000,000 from the defendent but collecting $1,000 will still hurt some peoples wallets - and enough to get some parent to ground their kid for a year or five
3) Because you need to keep protecting your IP or risk setting precedent that you are OK with people stealing your IP
I enjoy people's arguments that pirating is not stealing because it does not deprive anyone of the material (meaning they still have their own copy of the music). Stealing of information by copying has been punishable by law for many years - way before the Internet. It is a flawed argument to think stealing information is not a bad thing. Information theft is big business and very punishible. Many companies have their entire business model setup on proprietary information - the people here a /. may not like this - but guess what - the people here at /. were not the ones investing tons of money/time into those soft-products. Also, that nice new fancy drug that you or your family/loved ones are taking to save their lives...that formula is most likely (for new drugs) a closely held secret by a company that spent many millions in R&D. Without these copyright protections said companies would have no reason to create life-saving medicines. Just like drug makers have to protect their recipies from international infringements so do people who want to profit from their music.
Nothing wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property.
In November, 2004, several judges in the federal court in Austin, Texas, got together and ordered the RIAA to cease and desist from its practice of joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case. The RIAA blithely ignored the order, and continued the illegal practice for the next four years, but steering clear of Austin.
Am I missing something? So what made this illegal? If they didn't do the act in Austin then they didn't do anything illegal. I am no fan of RIAA but to call something illegal when it is not is wrong. They complied with the judges wishes and stopped doing what they were doing in the Judge's jurisdiction.
How is this different from every other picture posted on Facebook?
I know this is /. and people like to be assinine devil's advocates but maybe you should rethink your question and try again.
But they can ask you to be discrete about it - and you should show some discretion.
I am down for women being naked, but I understand not everyone wants to see that. It's not appropriate in public. Maybe you don't get offended by it, but a lot of people do. So why do something to deliberately offend people? You are not being repressed so it is not a statement of civil rights. Being tactful is not a crime.
Breast feeding in public is required for your baby to eat. That is fine - though you should be discrete - you don't have to be totally topless. You can keep yourself covered enough that nobody can see your chest unless they are at an acute angle.
As for posting the picture on the site - guess what, it is not required for your baby to survive to post a picture on the site. You are doing it for a personal reason. Well that is fine - except Facebook is owned by someone(s) and they don't want it. If you do not like it you can delete your account. By not respecting their rules you are in violation of their TOC and you are wrong.
Just because your work area does not involve SQL does not mean it is not commonplace. Small/medium businesses actually prefer to not use SQL because of the expense of setting everythign up (Windows server, SQL Server Enterprise, then probably Exchange to have a good e-mail system) but they use it (I did work for a company that does custom software for small/medium businsses). TO be honest the owners/managers didn't care about the programming language - only the price tag. Then again...spending $300,000 on custom software makes the $20,000 investment in MS server products not that painful. Its also buried in the price "Yes to make you a custom app will cost $320,000 for everything."
.net and sql all the way with the exception of legacy apps - but they are being re-written.
For a business that gets custom software the added expense of the MS products is not that much...the custom software is way more expensive.
I now work for a huge company - and yea
Yea but the republicans actually hurt things.