Stewart Baker, recently appointed by President Bush as the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for policy, made a comment that suggested that some anti-piracy efforts introduced by the industry could have profound and unexpected effects on the security of the nation's critical infrastructures.
Other than the concern that a nation filled with Spears, Timberlake and Dion worshippers would be unable to defend the nation against an invasion by Canada or Luxembourg I fail to grasp the connection between Homeland Security and a moronic VP at Sony who is trying to render 1/2 of his company's music player division worthless.
Unfortunately, under the terms of MS licensing these companies are prohibited from using MS Office to draft documents or emails discussing using an open document format.
seeking relief for all U.S. consumers who have purchased any of the 20 music CDs in question
In other words, the lawyers are lining up to ease the pain of the affected consumers by securing a $2 off coupon for the next DRM'ed CD while collecting $12 million for themselves.
Do you *really* believe that your senior managers need to know every technical detail of every product you have? I don't. They are there to manage, not to know the minutae of code. I suspect in Sony's case, some high up manager said "make sure our new CDs have some sort of copy protection on them" to one of his minions. From there, the message got passed down the chain, maybe through 5 or 6 people. Yes, the buck stops at the top, but is firing really the solution? Will firing a VP or two actually make a difference?
Yes, firing a VP or two will actually make a difference. For as much money as these people make - and for as little work they actually do - they can, nay, should be required to accept the responsibility of their actions. If they rubber stamp an action plan without fully understanding it then let them accept the blame. That they don't understand the technical aspects of the DRM is irrelevant - they should know what it does and, more importantly, how Sony's customers may react. If a VP is expected to do nothing but sit around, blindly stamp approval on projects not understood, then accept no blame or responsibility of anything that goes wrong, why is it in the cushy office?
Fire just one VP at Sony over this and send a message to industry - I guarantee that corporations around the world will start to pay attention to what the top execs are actually doing. (Or not doing as is usually the case.)
Anybody who buys any CD or DVD from Sony before a VP at Sony is fired over this bears direct responsibility for this. The ONLY thing that Sony will understand is a loss of business. Losing a lawsuit just won't cut it because their insurance company will bear the brunt of the loss.
If you care about this, then don't buy Sony games, music or movies. If you don't care about DRM and spyware issues then by all means go out and buy more product from them.
Is sending a clear message that you will not tolerate corporate abuses worth going a few months without shelling out $18 for a CD that has two decent tracks on it?
Accept nothing less - the public firing of the VP who oversaw the department that gave the green light to this - or no purchase of any Sony game, music or movie.
Personally I don't think enough people value unhacked systems enough to make the sacrifice. My prediction is that Sony will essentially get away with it, may have their insurance company pay a few settlement checks, and make a better attempt next time around. Or simply write enough checks to MS to ensure that the DRM is included in the Colonel (weak joke about a police state... sorry). And write enough checks to Motorola and Intel to make sure that DRM is included at the chip level. And write enough checks to US Senators to make sure that the law will back them up next time.
Again, the only recourse is to refuse to buy Sony products until a VP is fired. Nothing else will work.
When we still have (at least one) state attorney general who believes that spam is protected by the first amendment, government regulators won't get involved. Except possibly during an election year when they might pass a toothless law that does nothing but confuse the confused.
Pure, raw, unadulterated situation: congress doesn't care. The big ISPs don't care. They have had 10 years to address the situation and have refused all along. They are, however, willing to pass laws preventing unsecured wireless access points. Given a choice between lending support to MPAA/RIAA or actually addressing a serious problem, be it hacking, phishing, worms, viral attacks, DDOS attacks or any other legitimate issue.... look at it like this: how quickly have they acted to prevent the zombie issue? How quickly did they act to try and sneak the broadcast flag into law. Again? Or again?
Start writing campaign checks and picking up the tab for "fact finding missions" to Hawaii for a senator or ten... then you might find some interest on the hill.
Everyone hates us Irish... "Paddywagon", hows that. If any other nationality or group was inserted into that term
Stop looking for proof that the world hates you. The term paddywagon is one of respect, from the days when most cops were Irish. Paddywagons were driven by the Irish - they weren't carrying them.
And I'm Irish on my paternal great-grandfather's side.
I know that they have to cough up New York when they play Madison Square Garden, but do the players from, say, the Miami Heat need to pay taxes to New York when they are playing a game in California because part of their income is derived from the television broadcast in NYC?
The answer is probably no, but if a guy has to pay tax for revenue derived by electronically entering the state of New York, why shouldn't the Chicago White Sox and the Houston Astros pay NY tax when they elecontrically entered the state as well?
Silly concept, but I'd love to see a politico explain it away.
pretty much any higher tax burden on the company I used to work for would have driven it out of business
There is a concept the businesses more" ilk: businesses do not pay any taxes. 100% of taxes levied against businesses are paid by their customers or the company will go out of business. If you tax the businesses and corporations enough they may no longer be able to pass those costs on to their consumers and will go out of business. Or they might go offshore. But a business never pays taxes out of their own pocket.
Let's say a person lives in Washington (another state sans income tax... one of the reasons why Bill set up shop there) and blogs for a living. Does he have to pay tax for the AdSense revenue generated by somebody in NYC who clicks on a link?
So long as incumbents have an advantage come election day such abuses will continue to mount. Personally, I advocate laws requiring each ballot to have the number of times taxes have been raised printed alongside the name of the incumbent, a ban on identifying the incumbent on ballots or perhaps even more radical ideas designed to make sure that somebody has to work to remain in office and can't just coast in because he already happens to be on the throne, producing lots of....
It would be music to any non-profit organization's ears: an unexpected $1,000 donation. But the offer came with dirty strings attached, and the surprise donation to California-based Urban Age Institute was hardly a gift at all. Instead, it placed the organization right in the middle of an extensive -- but elegantly simple -- worldwide scam.
Within days, $10,000 worth of checks were written against the non-profit's accounts and cashed by a woman in Georgia. She in turn wired money to Nigeria. The incident left the organization's leaders wondering: Is it that easy to raid anyone's checking account? The answer, according to banking experts interviewed for this story, is yes.
Armed with just a checking account number and bank routing number, criminals can create checks at whim, experts and law enforcement authorities say.
Most consumers presume that checks must be signed by an authorized account holder. That's ordinarily true, but not in the case of so-called "demand drafts." These look just like checks, but indicate "signature not required" or a similar message in the authorized signature area. And generally, banks cash them just like valid, signed checks.
one community bank surveyed demand drafts and found 73 percent to be fraudulent.
Last year, MSNBC.com exposed a Web site named PharmacyCards.com that was creating demand draft checks and withdrawing $139 from checking accounts all over the United States. The Federal Trade Commission later sued the site and alleged it had attempted to steal $10 million with bogus demand drafts.
since the $140 million wasn't a reward, it was an enticement.
Possibly true, but Disney shouldn't be offering $140,000,000 to entice them to come over and do nothing. I'll go to Disney and do nothing (and probably oversee less damage) for the bargain price of $500,000. Or offshore the position to India for $500. The board that approved such a juicy carrot should be forever barred from sitting on the board of a public company. Unfortunately, board members are rarely held accountable for their stupidity and waste. (Has a member of a board -ever- been punished for insisting that a useless git be crowned CEO?)
The $140 mil was for what he gave up to go to Disney in the first place. If you owned a company that made you fabuously rich, wouldn't you expect some kind of compensation to walk away from it?
At issue isn't what people make... I believe in a free market and people should be free to make as much money as they possibly can. The question is should Disney have paid him $140,000,000 without demanding even a fractional return on their investment?
Regardless of what he gave up to go to Disney, he did not earn that $140 million. That he cashed the check once received is entirely different and I don't fault the guy for that. But just handing out $140 million without getting anything in return is bad business any way you look at it.
Same goes for those other overpaid executives that were mentioned throughout the thread: if you notice the only executives who were identified as overpaid were those who collected vast sums of money while their companies failed quarter after quarter. CEOs who oversee record profits deserve record compensation - but to shell out millions in golden parachutes to CEOs who did nothing but deflect blame as they file for b/k and wipe out the pensions and investment portfolios of employees is simply wrong. Again, it isn't wrong simply because they were given millions but because they were given millions without merit. At the expense of somebody else.
Dear Sony
Regarding the rootkit you are attempting to install on the computers of customers who purchase Van Zant's "Get Right with the Man": my relationship with you is over. I will never again purchase -any- CD from Sony Music. Period. Your intentional introduction of security holes and your undisclosed modification of the operating system is simply unacceptable and uncalled for. Your application of excessive, intrusive and unreasonable DRM has ensured that I will -never- purchase any work with the Sony logo.
The number of pirated copies this prevents me from downloading or sharing? Zero - I don't pirate. I don't give people copies of my music. The number of future dollars your DRM (which is sure to be broken within weeks anyway) has cost your company? Beyond calculation: my life expectancy has me sticking around - NOT buying Sony music, by the way - for decades to come. Was this worth the trade?
If you want my business then I demand nothing short of full public disclosure, an appology, and the very public firing of the executive who gave the green light to this horrible, horrible concept.
Please note that I intend to share this letter with others. With luck they too will refuse to purchase Sony music in the future.
Through jury nulification you have a small unaccountable group that can suspend the law at their whim through simple majority.
You think too poorly of the majority. If a jury pool selected at random without undue tampering and stacking can't come to unanimous conviction then the accused shouldn't go to jail. Keeping one innocent person out of jail outweighs by far putting 100 guilty people in jail.
For good or for bad the people are supposed to be running the government. The common population is supposed to pull the strings and the elected officials are supposed to dance. Giving the judges carte blanche until they really screw up before challenging them with a virtually impossible impeachment process is only asking for trouble. The judge who was steering public defense work to her adulterous boyfriend who killed his wife so he could openly hook up with said judge. As punishment she was given a six month paid vacati.. errr... suspension for lying to police during their investigation.
The argument he was addressing was that the government should wait until 2009 to do the conversion, because it would cost less. His point was that, by waiting so long, many people would be left out for a long time (~2 years), and he believes that it would affect their lives in a negative manner. This all leads up to the quote: money shouldn't be the most important thing to the government in this debate; the lives of the people should be paramount.
Actually, the money vs lives bit came from his declaration that the analog TV channels should be turned over to local fire/police departments sooner, rather than later, with the impression that doing so would save lives.
However, since there is no federal interest in ensuring that people have access to television it is painfully clear that Sen McCain's agreement to spend $3 billion on such a project is a direct acknowledgement that he believes money is more important than pesky questions of Constitutionality or even wisdom.
To put this in perspective, as of 2002 the nation was collectively spending about $3.5 billion/year on public transportation. So for the cost of getting countless millions of people to work - while many others can't work because they have no means of getting to work - the Federal Government will ensure that they can watch crisp, clean TV.
As for the person who rated the parent troll, I simply ask for examples where requiring lawyers to be present improved the situation. ANY situation. Lawyers don't argue the law anymore so much as they manipulate the presentation thereof.
Wouldn't that problem be solved by mandating the presence of at least one person with a law degree (or a law student) in the jury?
The vast majority of judges in this country have law degrees (many states make this a codified requirement - I don't know about federal judges but the odds of a non-lawyer being appointed federal judge are pretty much 0 in a trillion). Many US Senators and Reps have law degrees. Many state senators and representatives and governors have law degrees.
No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.
If anything, lawyers should be banned from serving on juries.
Which is why jury nullification is such an important aspect of the modern legal system. Since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - ie: congress will always take it upon themselves to pass idiotic and patently unjust laws (see previous comments about US Sen McCain, R-AZ declaring that money is more important than the Constitution) and judges will always side with modern interpretations of law over the US Constitution and common sense - the ability for the jury to declare a law unenforcible is paramount to a fair and equitable society.
A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)
Some states get it right:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)
the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)
Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.
Quoted in the Washington Post, 10/20/05 in an article about a $3 billion dollar federal subsidy to ensure that the poor in this country can afford digital television. (There ain't enough money for bread, but there's enough for Beavis and Butthead).
A request for clarification to Sen. McCain's office was ignored. Other Senators refused to distance themselves from the remark.
While the (theoretical) advantages are clearly there, I'm not convinced that this is the best move for small businesses. The big boys of Ford, GM, Lucent and EDS would all love to be able to have internal office hosting for thin client terminals that make it a piece of cake to deploy new desktops, but for small 10-15 user offices with expensive and relatively slow network connections there just isn't enough value in putting your entire productivity in the hands of Ameritech, Comcast or shudder Qwest. In my office if the network goes down it is terribly inconvenient but I can still compose replies to emails that stack up in my inbox, examine reports, and engage in many other productive activities. If a construction crew digs up a network cable, if the DNS goes flewkey on me or if another Paris Hilton prawn video comes out and everybody for miles around clog up the bandwidth then I'm left high and dry with nothing to do.
From the MS POV, it is very difficult to pirate a hosted app and makes it easier to enforce EULA clauses along the lines of You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services (FrontPage 2002).
Personally, I don't think that the company that allows "low level" employees to announce company-wide projects that violate anti-trust agreements without review by upper management can be trusted with confidential and sensitive documents that I create. But that's just me.
It's funny. I've heard many people here tell us "why the Christians want this."
But none of the people offering explanations were Christian.
And your assumption that "none of the people offering explanations were Christian" is based on... ?
For the record - and as a Christian - I have no objections to the.xxx TLD. While I personally have the opinion that pornography does harm certain individuals in specific ways in some circumstances, I personally have the opinion that whatever images you call up on your screen, or whatever DVDs you rent or whatever lapdance parlors you may or may not visit are none of my business. I really, honestly and truthfully don't care if goatceks.ru is your homepage. I could not possibly be any less interested in your fetish of C-YK inkjet printouts of emboss-effect photoshopped adult spam images. Personally I think that putting all of the adult themed websites in.xxx then I could easily stay away and Eugene and Rusty could find them more easily.
But I personally know/have gone to school/work/church with people who do not feel the same. If there is a news story about a streaker, a topless beach in France or some 10 year old kid who mooned a friend and they stiffen up and become quite upset. They write letters to city governments protesting proposed nudist camps in the middle of hundred-acre private forests with 3,000 feet of thick growth between the nearest private road and the volleyball courts. I have personally known people who think it a mortal sin to kiss before marriage. They consider Genesis 3:10 to be a commandment, are proud to let people know that they change with their lights off and are, quite frankly, prudes in every possible sense of the word. But if it works for them then I'm all for it. I don't look down on them, I don't think less of them, I don't make fun of them, they simply believe differently than I do and the world keeps spinning.
There are all kinds of flavors of Christianity: I was never in reference to Christians in general, only certain Christians who believe and act in certain ways. I've known some of them and I think I have a pretty good grasp on how and why they process information as they do and what motivates them to do whatever it is that they are doing.
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an.xxx domain?
Because
An.xxx TLD affords the appearance of legitimacy, integration and acceptance
They have an opportunity to protest prawnography - many of them simply protest prawnography because they have to protest something to prove their dedication
Slashdot Mirror
Other than the concern that a nation filled with Spears, Timberlake and Dion worshippers would be unable to defend the nation against an invasion by Canada or Luxembourg I fail to grasp the connection between Homeland Security and a moronic VP at Sony who is trying to render 1/2 of his company's music player division worthless.
Unfortunately, under the terms of MS licensing these companies are prohibited from using MS Office to draft documents or emails discussing using an open document format.
In other words, the lawyers are lining up to ease the pain of the affected consumers by securing a $2 off coupon for the next DRM'ed CD while collecting $12 million for themselves.
Yes, firing a VP or two will actually make a difference. For as much money as these people make - and for as little work they actually do - they can, nay, should be required to accept the responsibility of their actions. If they rubber stamp an action plan without fully understanding it then let them accept the blame. That they don't understand the technical aspects of the DRM is irrelevant - they should know what it does and, more importantly, how Sony's customers may react. If a VP is expected to do nothing but sit around, blindly stamp approval on projects not understood, then accept no blame or responsibility of anything that goes wrong, why is it in the cushy office?
Fire just one VP at Sony over this and send a message to industry - I guarantee that corporations around the world will start to pay attention to what the top execs are actually doing. (Or not doing as is usually the case.)
If you care about this, then don't buy Sony games, music or movies. If you don't care about DRM and spyware issues then by all means go out and buy more product from them.
Is sending a clear message that you will not tolerate corporate abuses worth going a few months without shelling out $18 for a CD that has two decent tracks on it?
Accept nothing less - the public firing of the VP who oversaw the department that gave the green light to this - or no purchase of any Sony game, music or movie.
Personally I don't think enough people value unhacked systems enough to make the sacrifice. My prediction is that Sony will essentially get away with it, may have their insurance company pay a few settlement checks, and make a better attempt next time around. Or simply write enough checks to MS to ensure that the DRM is included in the Colonel (weak joke about a police state... sorry). And write enough checks to Motorola and Intel to make sure that DRM is included at the chip level. And write enough checks to US Senators to make sure that the law will back them up next time.
Again, the only recourse is to refuse to buy Sony products until a VP is fired. Nothing else will work.
Pure, raw, unadulterated situation: congress doesn't care. The big ISPs don't care. They have had 10 years to address the situation and have refused all along. They are, however, willing to pass laws preventing unsecured wireless access points. Given a choice between lending support to MPAA/RIAA or actually addressing a serious problem, be it hacking, phishing, worms, viral attacks, DDOS attacks or any other legitimate issue.... look at it like this: how quickly have they acted to prevent the zombie issue? How quickly did they act to try and sneak the broadcast flag into law. Again? Or again?
Start writing campaign checks and picking up the tab for "fact finding missions" to Hawaii for a senator or ten... then you might find some interest on the hill.
Stop looking for proof that the world hates you. The term paddywagon is one of respect, from the days when most cops were Irish. Paddywagons were driven by the Irish - they weren't carrying them.
And I'm Irish on my paternal great-grandfather's side.
Laminar flow is more efficient at thermal transfer than turbulent flow.
The answer is probably no, but if a guy has to pay tax for revenue derived by electronically entering the state of New York, why shouldn't the Chicago White Sox and the Houston Astros pay NY tax when they elecontrically entered the state as well?
Silly concept, but I'd love to see a politico explain it away.
There is a concept the businesses more" ilk: businesses do not pay any taxes. 100% of taxes levied against businesses are paid by their customers or the company will go out of business. If you tax the businesses and corporations enough they may no longer be able to pass those costs on to their consumers and will go out of business. Or they might go offshore. But a business never pays taxes out of their own pocket.
Is Tiger Woods paying New York taxes on money he makes at golf events that are televised in New York?
So long as incumbents have an advantage come election day such abuses will continue to mount. Personally, I advocate laws requiring each ballot to have the number of times taxes have been raised printed alongside the name of the incumbent, a ban on identifying the incumbent on ballots or perhaps even more radical ideas designed to make sure that somebody has to work to remain in office and can't just coast in because he already happens to be on the throne, producing lots of....
It would be music to any non-profit organization's ears: an unexpected $1,000 donation. But the offer came with dirty strings attached, and the surprise donation to California-based Urban Age Institute was hardly a gift at all. Instead, it placed the organization right in the middle of an extensive -- but elegantly simple -- worldwide scam.
Within days, $10,000 worth of checks were written against the non-profit's accounts and cashed by a woman in Georgia. She in turn wired money to Nigeria. The incident left the organization's leaders wondering: Is it that easy to raid anyone's checking account? The answer, according to banking experts interviewed for this story, is yes.
Armed with just a checking account number and bank routing number, criminals can create checks at whim, experts and law enforcement authorities say.
Most consumers presume that checks must be signed by an authorized account holder. That's ordinarily true, but not in the case of so-called "demand drafts." These look just like checks, but indicate "signature not required" or a similar message in the authorized signature area. And generally, banks cash them just like valid, signed checks.
one community bank surveyed demand drafts and found 73 percent to be fraudulent.
Last year, MSNBC.com exposed a Web site named PharmacyCards.com that was creating demand draft checks and withdrawing $139 from checking accounts all over the United States. The Federal Trade Commission later sued the site and alleged it had attempted to steal $10 million with bogus demand drafts.
And on and on and on...
Possibly true, but Disney shouldn't be offering $140,000,000 to entice them to come over and do nothing. I'll go to Disney and do nothing (and probably oversee less damage) for the bargain price of $500,000. Or offshore the position to India for $500. The board that approved such a juicy carrot should be forever barred from sitting on the board of a public company. Unfortunately, board members are rarely held accountable for their stupidity and waste. (Has a member of a board -ever- been punished for insisting that a useless git be crowned CEO?)
At issue isn't what people make... I believe in a free market and people should be free to make as much money as they possibly can. The question is should Disney have paid him $140,000,000 without demanding even a fractional return on their investment?
Regardless of what he gave up to go to Disney, he did not earn that $140 million. That he cashed the check once received is entirely different and I don't fault the guy for that. But just handing out $140 million without getting anything in return is bad business any way you look at it.
Same goes for those other overpaid executives that were mentioned throughout the thread: if you notice the only executives who were identified as overpaid were those who collected vast sums of money while their companies failed quarter after quarter. CEOs who oversee record profits deserve record compensation - but to shell out millions in golden parachutes to CEOs who did nothing but deflect blame as they file for b/k and wipe out the pensions and investment portfolios of employees is simply wrong. Again, it isn't wrong simply because they were given millions but because they were given millions without merit. At the expense of somebody else.
Dear Sony Regarding the rootkit you are attempting to install on the computers of customers who purchase Van Zant's "Get Right with the Man": my relationship with you is over. I will never again purchase -any- CD from Sony Music. Period. Your intentional introduction of security holes and your undisclosed modification of the operating system is simply unacceptable and uncalled for. Your application of excessive, intrusive and unreasonable DRM has ensured that I will -never- purchase any work with the Sony logo. The number of pirated copies this prevents me from downloading or sharing? Zero - I don't pirate. I don't give people copies of my music. The number of future dollars your DRM (which is sure to be broken within weeks anyway) has cost your company? Beyond calculation: my life expectancy has me sticking around - NOT buying Sony music, by the way - for decades to come. Was this worth the trade? If you want my business then I demand nothing short of full public disclosure, an appology, and the very public firing of the executive who gave the green light to this horrible, horrible concept. Please note that I intend to share this letter with others. With luck they too will refuse to purchase Sony music in the future.
You think too poorly of the majority. If a jury pool selected at random without undue tampering and stacking can't come to unanimous conviction then the accused shouldn't go to jail. Keeping one innocent person out of jail outweighs by far putting 100 guilty people in jail.
For good or for bad the people are supposed to be running the government. The common population is supposed to pull the strings and the elected officials are supposed to dance. Giving the judges carte blanche until they really screw up before challenging them with a virtually impossible impeachment process is only asking for trouble. The judge who was steering public defense work to her adulterous boyfriend who killed his wife so he could openly hook up with said judge. As punishment she was given a six month paid vacati.. errr... suspension for lying to police during their investigation.
Actually, the money vs lives bit came from his declaration that the analog TV channels should be turned over to local fire/police departments sooner, rather than later, with the impression that doing so would save lives.
However, since there is no federal interest in ensuring that people have access to television it is painfully clear that Sen McCain's agreement to spend $3 billion on such a project is a direct acknowledgement that he believes money is more important than pesky questions of Constitutionality or even wisdom.
To put this in perspective, as of 2002 the nation was collectively spending about $3.5 billion/year on public transportation. So for the cost of getting countless millions of people to work - while many others can't work because they have no means of getting to work - the Federal Government will ensure that they can watch crisp, clean TV.
As for the person who rated the parent troll, I simply ask for examples where requiring lawyers to be present improved the situation. ANY situation. Lawyers don't argue the law anymore so much as they manipulate the presentation thereof.
The vast majority of judges in this country have law degrees (many states make this a codified requirement - I don't know about federal judges but the odds of a non-lawyer being appointed federal judge are pretty much 0 in a trillion). Many US Senators and Reps have law degrees. Many state senators and representatives and governors have law degrees.
No problem in the history of the world has ever been solved or even lessened by requiring lawyers to get involved.
If anything, lawyers should be banned from serving on juries.
A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)
Some states get it right:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)
the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)
Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.
Other related takes can be found here and here.
"There's only one thing more important than money _ and that's lives"
Quoted in the Washington Post, 10/20/05 in an article about a $3 billion dollar federal subsidy to ensure that the poor in this country can afford digital television. (There ain't enough money for bread, but there's enough for Beavis and Butthead).
A request for clarification to Sen. McCain's office was ignored. Other Senators refused to distance themselves from the remark.
From the MS POV, it is very difficult to pirate a hosted app and makes it easier to enforce EULA clauses along the lines of You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services (FrontPage 2002).
Personally, I don't think that the company that allows "low level" employees to announce company-wide projects that violate anti-trust agreements without review by upper management can be trusted with confidential and sensitive documents that I create. But that's just me.
And your assumption that "none of the people offering explanations were Christian" is based on... ?
For the record - and as a Christian - I have no objections to the .xxx TLD. While I personally have the opinion that pornography does harm certain individuals in specific ways in some circumstances, I personally have the opinion that whatever images you call up on your screen, or whatever DVDs you rent or whatever lapdance parlors you may or may not visit are none of my business. I really, honestly and truthfully don't care if goatceks.ru is your homepage. I could not possibly be any less interested in your fetish of C-YK inkjet printouts of emboss-effect photoshopped adult spam images. Personally I think that putting all of the adult themed websites in .xxx then I could easily stay away and Eugene and Rusty could find them more easily.
But I personally know/have gone to school/work/church with people who do not feel the same. If there is a news story about a streaker, a topless beach in France or some 10 year old kid who mooned a friend and they stiffen up and become quite upset. They write letters to city governments protesting proposed nudist camps in the middle of hundred-acre private forests with 3,000 feet of thick growth between the nearest private road and the volleyball courts. I have personally known people who think it a mortal sin to kiss before marriage. They consider Genesis 3:10 to be a commandment, are proud to let people know that they change with their lights off and are, quite frankly, prudes in every possible sense of the word. But if it works for them then I'm all for it. I don't look down on them, I don't think less of them, I don't make fun of them, they simply believe differently than I do and the world keeps spinning.
There are all kinds of flavors of Christianity: I was never in reference to Christians in general, only certain Christians who believe and act in certain ways. I've known some of them and I think I have a pretty good grasp on how and why they process information as they do and what motivates them to do whatever it is that they are doing.
Because
All hail CEO Wonko the Sane!