There will be less legitimate guns on the street - I like to be able to shoot someone who tries to stick me with a knife, or the group of people who want to beat me up cause they are a group of people who can. Maybe you disagree - but then again, maybe you haven't been on the wrong side of a gun barral, or been beaten by a group of people because they were bored.
There is such a proliferation of guns that criminals (who generally have guns illegally acquired) will still have these...while the honest joe schmoe who goes through the legal process to own a gun will not be able to have one. So what we will see is criminals and law enforcement with guns - but the average *law abiding* citizen without. How is this a good thing?
They claim to have purchased a license. With regards to the music they licensed they can make it available (within the guidelines of the license agreement). Apparantly, however, there were songs they were making available that they did not have a license for and this is what they were getting sued over.
Now the d/l'ers were looking at the website and saw that these guys were "Licensed" and it looked like a legitimate operation - so the d/l'ers are blameless (generally we do not see the contracts, so we have no way of verifying).
I do understand that people who legitmately acquire music can make copies - where did I say that this wasn't the case?
Making anything of Britney Spears available, except her nice breasesists is a crime;)
in the context of our conversation my statement was valid. Your nit-pick was invalid.
The the term "owner" is used aptly and correctly - it is not convoluted. The "people" do not own Brtiney Spears' songs - she does (or her music label, however her contract is made).
Even public domain songs are not, generally, owned by the people - it is made free for people to use within certain guidelines (i.e. you do not make an assertion that you created the music).
Yes because i love the RIAA. The only troll here is you.
Protection of the music (or any copyright material) does not require it to be hidden under lock and key so people can't enjoy it. Protection means that if you want to posses the music in some format you will go out and pay for it (assuming the artist charges). Protection means that you can't lay claim to the work (unless you created it).
The spirit of the russian law - as evidented by their DA, is to ensure that those caught of giving it out (i.e. P2P) get prosecuted and shut down.
xnxx.com and others like it are free and there is not even a warning message to get in.
While I have no personal problems with this, when I have kids, I think I will. It is simply too easy to make a typo and head off to a website that has porn on it.
You didn't know it was specifically illegal to d/l a Britney Spears song? Sheesh, that law came out right after the words "Hit me baby one more time" were uttered from her mouth....
The law states that an owner of the copyright has the right to copy, distribute etc (according to your link)....last I heard, allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner and neither are the people who d/l the music.
It's a loophole. The spirit of the law intended to protect this music - but the makers of the law didn't think about online distribution and it's wording...had they thought about it at the time they drafted the law - they would have included it. It is a loophole.
Hmm when you say "I figure we're ok to use Allofmp3 for a couple more years" you do mean people who live in Russia? Because from my understanding, if you are here on the US side and you somehow get caught d/l'ing Brittney Spears from a Russian server, you are still bound by US laws...and will get prosecuted for d/ling Brittney Spears.
I read the article, and it was an article performed about teenagers and driving - and do they understand what "high risk" is. It says the research "has implications" towards other things.
To re-emphasize - this research did not specifically talk about someone's concept of dying - if it is wrong or right. I fail to see how this article qualifies?
You said you did not understand life or death until someone died in your life? I did not ask if you knew how it felt to have someone close die to you - that is not the question - nobody can know that until they experience it. We want to know if you understand what death is - and if it is wrong to kill someone. Are you telling me you didn't realize it is wrong to kill someone until the age of 22? Does that mean if I have never had anyone die, who is close to me, and I am 35 I am exempt from being tried as an adult. YOu will find that 8 year olds can understand that hurting someone is wrong.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain. The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
I forget what the exact stats are - but the death penalty system is poor. I think, in Cali, the last person executed was about 20 years ago. Studies show that more people (by far) die on death row from natural causes then by the death penalty itself.
I think, and studies have shown, that kids younger then 18 understand what death is. I understood it at the age of about 8. I think the argument of not using the death penalty because of the appeals process is a faulty one; just like saying patent law should be abolished because it is faulty....a faulty law may be very useful - but just may need revision.
Imho, I would say that someone on death row has up to 3 appeals, and a max stay on death row of 10 years before execution; unless new "valid" evidence is shown and then a new trial could happen. That should give anyone, plenty of time to prove their innocence.
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
In all actuality, it probably serves to benefit the kid if he seems remorseful at all as the jury may be more lenient on a kid who is up for the death penalty.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
I have quit my job because I did not like the corporate culture. When I worked part-time at PNC bank I didn't like how the rules were set to make the Personal Bankers and the Tellers basically against each other. The PB's were told to give the client everything and then some for nothing, while the Tellers were told to enforce the rules and gov't compliance.
I then worked for Citizen's bank for about 6 months (until I graduated college) - I told them I would only continue to work for them if I was put in a back-office position...either IT department, or management of some back office department...i refused to continue in retail.
The most important reasons for me are:
if the job becomes stagnant (not advancing, learning)
if I found a job that would pay considerably more and give me more responsibilities (management, travelling, etc.)
if I could not get along with the company to the point it became horrible to work there.
I have turned down jobs before - but only when I was currently employed...I do not think I could easily turn down a job if I was unemployed...I would continue to look for another job - but when you need a paycheck you need a paycheck.
So they do it in reverse...there might be some legal reason to do it in reverse (as you suggested). I think the accused has to know what they are being tried for and what the state is seeking in penalties before being tried - so that might be the reason - otherwise it throws the legal process in disarray (isn't it always there). Personally, imho, as long as the person gets the chair I don't care in which order they announce it. I take that back, if a particular order 1) saves us money and 2) makes the kids life more miserable then that path is preferred. Though - a second hearing gives more chances for appeals, etc.
I think googling that specific term will tend to bring back sites that only talk about death penalty that runs in the millions - which could be biased. I would rather google "death penalty cost" or "death penalty taxpayer"....and see all the results. I think a high run (my searches) of 1.5 million is a long shot from millions which implies at least 2 million, but hints towards higher numbers (otherwise they would use couple of million). I know I am harping on the language, but as a communication degree holder I try to read between the lines (even though I sometimes write poorly for convenience).
So lets agree to disagree.
I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently:)
Please cite the source of millions for the death penalty. The highest (legit) sources I have seen talked about 1.5 million...that includes housing them for 20 years, all the appeals they get, and finally killing. The actual killing is about 50-70k...the rest is all the BS red tape. Even if the inmate wants to be put to death some stupid lawyer with a publicity agenda will fight it in court - against the inmates wishes...the 1.5 million cost is largely due to a moronic legislative system....the cost of housing consistantly increases (it will be alot more in 20 years then what it is now, especially with the explosion of Aids/HIV and other medical costs).
Fry em and forget about them...including the kids.
Again, please site legit sources about the "millions" to put someone to death.
I have done the research in one of my comm classes (debate)...the process of appeals is expensive as hell - but that is a fault of the legal process... it does not make the law wrong - just means the red-tape is a problem.
According to CBS News the cost is 20k/year/inmate. This does not include the cost of a prison cell which is 100k/cell.
Or Here which lists the cost as about 20-40k per year per inmate.
Remember these are prices from a few years ago, rising costs everyday... According to the second article, prices went up by 250% since 1980. That article used data from 1997.
Here is another link to a site that talks about the costs Here
Who says it has to be all or none? Is that similar to things have to be black or white? Good or bad? Yes or no? 1 or 0? This is real life, there is a lot of in between. It is not lame at all. The law takes many rights away from those convicted of crimes - if they want to extend that to a kid being put on trial for murder then that is fine. Just so you know - the trial will run just the same. If the kid is found not-guilty then they will go home, if the kid is found guilty then the "tried as an adult" comes into play as they are punished as an adult. The trial, in and of itself, will be run the same exact way.
The fed does not extort anything - you are looking at the glass half empty, as a punishment. I am looking at it as a reward..."You guys do something we feel is necessary, and you get a reward...you do not have to do it, but if you want to we will give you a benefit." Nobody is forcing the state to do it. A great example is Penn State University. They are a state school that is a wet campus...they do not get the bonus funding that other state schools in PA get. Nobody is extorting from them.
Slashdot Mirror
Please define legal & illegal fire arm.
There will be less legitimate guns on the street - I like to be able to shoot someone who tries to stick me with a knife, or the group of people who want to beat me up cause they are a group of people who can. Maybe you disagree - but then again, maybe you haven't been on the wrong side of a gun barral, or been beaten by a group of people because they were bored.
There is such a proliferation of guns that criminals (who generally have guns illegally acquired) will still have these...while the honest joe schmoe who goes through the legal process to own a gun will not be able to have one. So what we will see is criminals and law enforcement with guns - but the average *law abiding* citizen without. How is this a good thing?
They claim to have purchased a license. With regards to the music they licensed they can make it available (within the guidelines of the license agreement). Apparantly, however, there were songs they were making available that they did not have a license for and this is what they were getting sued over.
;)
Now the d/l'ers were looking at the website and saw that these guys were "Licensed" and it looked like a legitimate operation - so the d/l'ers are blameless (generally we do not see the contracts, so we have no way of verifying).
I do understand that people who legitmately acquire music can make copies - where did I say that this wasn't the case?
Making anything of Britney Spears available, except her nice breasesists is a crime
in the context of our conversation my statement was valid. Your nit-pick was invalid.
The the term "owner" is used aptly and correctly - it is not convoluted. The "people" do not own Brtiney Spears' songs - she does (or her music label, however her contract is made).
Even public domain songs are not, generally, owned by the people - it is made free for people to use within certain guidelines (i.e. you do not make an assertion that you created the music).
Yes because i love the RIAA. The only troll here is you.
Protection of the music (or any copyright material) does not require it to be hidden under lock and key so people can't enjoy it. Protection means that if you want to posses the music in some format you will go out and pay for it (assuming the artist charges). Protection means that you can't lay claim to the work (unless you created it).
The spirit of the russian law - as evidented by their DA, is to ensure that those caught of giving it out (i.e. P2P) get prosecuted and shut down.
xnxx.com and others like it are free and there is not even a warning message to get in.
While I have no personal problems with this, when I have kids, I think I will. It is simply too easy to make a typo and head off to a website that has porn on it.
You haven't done this already? And you call yourself a geek. Oh, and you forgot the tremor-sensor and laser motion device. Not to mention the ED-209
leaving your firewall, spamblocker, pop-up blocker, and virus protection programs off will leave your computer vulnerable to serious attacks....
The good old days :) Mosaic was my second coding experience - my first was Logowriter :D
You didn't know it was specifically illegal to d/l a Britney Spears song? Sheesh, that law came out right after the words "Hit me baby one more time" were uttered from her mouth....
The law states that an owner of the copyright has the right to copy, distribute etc (according to your link)....last I heard, allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner and neither are the people who d/l the music.
It's a loophole. The spirit of the law intended to protect this music - but the makers of the law didn't think about online distribution and it's wording...had they thought about it at the time they drafted the law - they would have included it. It is a loophole.
Or .554 Rouble per mb, eh comrade?
Hmm when you say "I figure we're ok to use Allofmp3 for a couple more years" you do mean people who live in Russia? Because from my understanding, if you are here on the US side and you somehow get caught d/l'ing Brittney Spears from a Russian server, you are still bound by US laws...and will get prosecuted for d/ling Brittney Spears.
I read the article, and it was an article performed about teenagers and driving - and do they understand what "high risk" is. It says the research "has implications" towards other things.
To re-emphasize - this research did not specifically talk about someone's concept of dying - if it is wrong or right. I fail to see how this article qualifies?
You said you did not understand life or death until someone died in your life? I did not ask if you knew how it felt to have someone close die to you - that is not the question - nobody can know that until they experience it. We want to know if you understand what death is - and if it is wrong to kill someone. Are you telling me you didn't realize it is wrong to kill someone until the age of 22? Does that mean if I have never had anyone die, who is close to me, and I am 35 I am exempt from being tried as an adult. YOu will find that 8 year olds can understand that hurting someone is wrong.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain. The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
when Billy can showcase a new product at a tech event without getting a BSOD or equivelant then we will stop with the BSOD jokes.
Sides, we all know it is just cause we are envious of Bill and his money.
Bicentennial man anyone?
As for making a "clown" or "jack in the box" good god man - clowns can be scary - you want to traumatize the kid?
I forget what the exact stats are - but the death penalty system is poor. I think, in Cali, the last person executed was about 20 years ago. Studies show that more people (by far) die on death row from natural causes then by the death penalty itself.
I think, and studies have shown, that kids younger then 18 understand what death is. I understood it at the age of about 8. I think the argument of not using the death penalty because of the appeals process is a faulty one; just like saying patent law should be abolished because it is faulty....a faulty law may be very useful - but just may need revision.
Imho, I would say that someone on death row has up to 3 appeals, and a max stay on death row of 10 years before execution; unless new "valid" evidence is shown and then a new trial could happen. That should give anyone, plenty of time to prove their innocence.
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
In all actuality, it probably serves to benefit the kid if he seems remorseful at all as the jury may be more lenient on a kid who is up for the death penalty.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
I have quit my job because I did not like the corporate culture. When I worked part-time at PNC bank I didn't like how the rules were set to make the Personal Bankers and the Tellers basically against each other. The PB's were told to give the client everything and then some for nothing, while the Tellers were told to enforce the rules and gov't compliance.
I then worked for Citizen's bank for about 6 months (until I graduated college) - I told them I would only continue to work for them if I was put in a back-office position...either IT department, or management of some back office department...i refused to continue in retail.
The most important reasons for me are:
if the job becomes stagnant (not advancing, learning)
if I found a job that would pay considerably more and give me more responsibilities (management, travelling, etc.)
if I could not get along with the company to the point it became horrible to work there.
I have turned down jobs before - but only when I was currently employed...I do not think I could easily turn down a job if I was unemployed...I would continue to look for another job - but when you need a paycheck you need a paycheck.
So they do it in reverse...there might be some legal reason to do it in reverse (as you suggested). I think the accused has to know what they are being tried for and what the state is seeking in penalties before being tried - so that might be the reason - otherwise it throws the legal process in disarray (isn't it always there). Personally, imho, as long as the person gets the chair I don't care in which order they announce it. I take that back, if a particular order 1) saves us money and 2) makes the kids life more miserable then that path is preferred. Though - a second hearing gives more chances for appeals, etc.
I think googling that specific term will tend to bring back sites that only talk about death penalty that runs in the millions - which could be biased. I would rather google "death penalty cost" or "death penalty taxpayer"....and see all the results. I think a high run (my searches) of 1.5 million is a long shot from millions which implies at least 2 million, but hints towards higher numbers (otherwise they would use couple of million). I know I am harping on the language, but as a communication degree holder I try to read between the lines (even though I sometimes write poorly for convenience).
:)
So lets agree to disagree.
I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently
Please cite the source of millions for the death penalty. The highest (legit) sources I have seen talked about 1.5 million...that includes housing them for 20 years, all the appeals they get, and finally killing. The actual killing is about 50-70k...the rest is all the BS red tape. Even if the inmate wants to be put to death some stupid lawyer with a publicity agenda will fight it in court - against the inmates wishes...the 1.5 million cost is largely due to a moronic legislative system....the cost of housing consistantly increases (it will be alot more in 20 years then what it is now, especially with the explosion of Aids/HIV and other medical costs).
Fry em and forget about them...including the kids.
Again, please site legit sources about the "millions" to put someone to death.
I have done the research in one of my comm classes (debate)...the process of appeals is expensive as hell - but that is a fault of the legal process... it does not make the law wrong - just means the red-tape is a problem.
According to CBS News the cost is 20k/year/inmate. This does not include the cost of a prison cell which is 100k/cell.
Or Here which lists the cost as about 20-40k per year per inmate.
Remember these are prices from a few years ago, rising costs everyday... According to the second article, prices went up by 250% since 1980. That article used data from 1997.
Here is another link to a site that talks about the costs Here
Who says it has to be all or none? Is that similar to things have to be black or white? Good or bad? Yes or no? 1 or 0? This is real life, there is a lot of in between. It is not lame at all. The law takes many rights away from those convicted of crimes - if they want to extend that to a kid being put on trial for murder then that is fine. Just so you know - the trial will run just the same. If the kid is found not-guilty then they will go home, if the kid is found guilty then the "tried as an adult" comes into play as they are punished as an adult. The trial, in and of itself, will be run the same exact way.
The fed does not extort anything - you are looking at the glass half empty, as a punishment. I am looking at it as a reward..."You guys do something we feel is necessary, and you get a reward...you do not have to do it, but if you want to we will give you a benefit." Nobody is forcing the state to do it. A great example is Penn State University. They are a state school that is a wet campus...they do not get the bonus funding that other state schools in PA get. Nobody is extorting from them.