Demonstrate to him that it will significantly lower his bills. If you can prove that standing on his head and clucking like a chicken will cut costs, he'll do it with a smile on his face. The way to the boss's heart is and always will be through his wallet.
I was the one saying "There's likely no WMD's over there, but let the inspectors finish their work. Saddam likely wasn't dumb enough to keep 'em."
I was NOT the one saying "I know where they are."
I can factually support that Bush and his Cabinet said such things, and I can factually support that his supporters did so as well. I can also factually support that Bush and his supporters were WRONG, and those against the war were RIGHT.
Now spin that. I'm sure you'll try. But that's the FACT of the matter.
Why yes, let's stay with a system with evident flaws, instead of trying to change it to a model which may well be superior.
You go back to the Dark Ages, then. The rest of us will continue to advocate progress, not just "This is how it is so that's how it should stay." If that logic were followed to its conclusion, we would never have come out of our caves. To be human is to seek a better way.
While I would love to live in a Star Trek type of society- where everyone has what they need and everyone contributes - it is simply not the case.
Right...but what? Your logic is "It isn't the case, so it shouldn't be, and we shouldn't try?" The current system is not perfect, I dare anyone to argue otherwise, and that means we ought to be looking for ways to improve it.
Looks like you are absolutely right...and still absolutely wrong.
You are indeed correct on what the law says. However, "ownership" of an idea is bullshit, regardless of what the law says. The law used to permit "owning" another human being, but that was wrong, regardless of what the law said. The law also prohibited liberating one of these "owned" people, but those who did it were right, regardless of the fact that what they were doing was illegal.
Now, lay off the submit-flame button, I am NOT saying that the concept of IP is anywhere near the injustice and evil of slavery. I am simply trying to make the point that the fact that something is codified in law does not make it right, and the fact that it is against the law does not make it wrong.
Excellently said, it's a shame I'm out of mod points.
When the users are paying for the costs of bandwidth, media, electricity, and every other cost of distribution, that is a far different scenario then a movie theater owner who is paying rent for the building, electricity for the lights, maintenance on the projector, cleaning for the floors/seats, and even water if you have to use the bathroom...I could go on. The point is, real, physical property != digital, intangible files.
While IANAL, that would seem to me to run afoul of both deceptive marketing (the product must do what you say it does, and NOT do what you say it doesn't) and promissory estoppel (if you agree not do something, and that can be proven, you are legally bound by it).
So yes, I think it could quite clearly be enforced, and any such information reported not only suppressed and barred from use in court, but a possible lawsuit -against- MPAA would likely be in the offing.
It depends. If the property you are sitting on and doing so is PRIVATE, they can throw you off of their REAL private property for any reason they like. However, if a public park adjoins the drive-in theater, they do NOT have the right to clear out the park at every showing.
When the movie theaters release a movie into the public sphere, they KNOW that people who didn't pay for it will see it along with those who do. This is an attempt to clear the park. Even if downloading didn't exist, what if I purchased (or rented) a movie, and invited 50 friends to see it?
When my debit card was stolen, almost $650 in charges were made to it before I noticed the next day and reported it. As soon as I reported it to the police, the bank reversed the charges. In the end, the bank has every bit the same authority as the credit card companies to "charge back" the merchants who allowed the unauthorized charge. It is (legally) the responsibility of the person or entity accepting the card as payment to verify that the person using the card is supposed to be, and it is the accepting merchant who will suffer a chargeback if they don't.
However, I noticed neither by a paper statement, nor an online one-in my case, the physical card was stolen, and I noticed it missing. Turned out it was stolen by my roommate who'd bought himself a bunch of bags, a Discman and bunch of CD's, etc., and skipped out of the state.
I am entirely a liberal, and entirely support this type of research, so long as it is sensibly and carefully controlled. Of course, at some point, there might be ethical issues raised, but let's be a little sensible here. Putting a human gene sequence or two into a mouse does not make that mouse some sort of "mini-human".
I could argue that it's typical conservative thinking that it's "tampering with God's order", and besides that, these scientists are considering -gasp- performing an abortion. Really, it has nothing to do with either-it is pro-progress thinkers vs. scared Luddites. And scared Luddites exist on -both- sides of the political spectrum.
Contrary to popular (and apparently your) belief, "liberal" is a DIFFERING OPINION, not a swear word. It is a philosophy, not a negative epithet. Not all idiots are liberals. (Don't believe me? Listen to Rush Limbaugh.) Granted, some are. (I've heard Michael Moore.) However, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore -both- fill their place very effectively-they convince those who are too dumb and sheeplike to examine an issue and form a real opinion. Once again, those people exist on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative line, and form the majority of Americans now.
And intelligent people exist in both camps, as well. I've met many intelligent conservatives. Demonizing your opposition, however, makes you look more like a rabble-rouser. That is not the way to an informed, reasonable debate.
Oh, and while I'm doing that, I'm supposed to take over 3 years to implement a real, meaningful security measure, since that might involve telling a -corporation- what to do.
Why you know, I think I'm learning this whole "national security" thing. Maybe I'll put in a resume for the Cabinet position...
And Iraq had a WMD, right? That bad old greenhouse-gas producing oil.
Except, we were going there to get some more of that stuff, not to stop its production...so I guess, in an odd way, we really DID go to Iraq over a WMD!
Of course, as it was before, they were producing very little of the stuff, so they weren't much of a threat at all...
And as I said, it's fine if someone wants to offer that, and it's fine if someone wants to pay for that. But the company should be up-front about it, not bury it in their fine print. If they claim they're still offering a product people want, well hell, they might be. But if they are, why bury the -real- terms in something the majority of customers don't read?
And yes, I know that people should read the fine print. That's why I do. But they know the majority of people don't, and stick land mines in there knowing that full well. That's dishonest, even if it's not technically illegal.
I use Comcast, and can quite assure you that I've gone WELL over 2.5 gigs a day, between downloading several versions of Linux to try and running (perfectly legal stuff;) ) over Bittorrent. I scoured their user agreements CAREFULLY for mention of a bandwidth cap and found no mention of such a thing. If they try to tag me with one, and it's still not in their subscriber agreement, they will be hit with a class-action false advertising suit.
In fact, while IANAL, it would seem to me that those saying "We offer 120000 Mbit/second connections!" and put the (but you can only use them for 2 GB/month) in the fine print of their AUP/TOS documents are guilty of false advertising. If you are offering a given speed, you are offering the ability (if someone so desires, which is rare anyway) to max out that connection for the entire month. If you are placing a bandwidth cap, the REAL speed you are offering would be:
(Monthly gigabyte limit)/(Number of seconds in month)=(Offered connection speed).
The logic here being, that if I can transfer a certain amount of data in a month with a dialup connection, and you limit me to transmitting that amount of data with a broadband, you are effectively selling me dialup. If I still want to pay an inflated price for the ability to use my whole monthly allotment in a few days, I can sure do that, but I should be informed properly by the company that that's all I'm getting for the money.
Of course, if we saw companies required to advertise THAT way, we wouldn't see them able to sucker people in by mentioning a blazing-fast speed in big red letters and then effectively nullifying it in the fine print. I imagine they just love that idea.
However, in Comcast's defense, I've never had problem #1 with them. I did have problems with the cable line on a couple of occasions, but they fixed it quickly both times and never tried to charge me. And they've certainly never said a word to me about my bandwidth use, which I know is very high most of the time. If they ever do, there'll be a fight...
Data on a hard drive, until the hard drive -does- begin to malfunction, is stored perfectly. That is, if I type a paragraph (or an entire book), save it, come back a year later, and reopen that file, then provided that the hard drive is functioning properly, that book will be pulled right back up, word-for-word. While the brain might remember the -idea- of the book, then chances are, if you are asked to repeat, word for word, the third paragraph on page 287, you will not be able to do so, even five minutes after reading it.
Of course, the ability to condense, interpret, and distill the important points out of information is what makes humans superior to computers. But there's something to be said for having a medium (paper and pen, computer, camera, whatever) that can store something exactly, and pull it up to refresh your memory (which likely still has the outline and highlights of important subjects, but may be missing the details) when the need be.
Also, whatever the brain may do, it doesn't always seem to work flawlessly at distinguishing important from unimportant. I have quite a few things pop into my head, at various times, some from when I was as young as 2. These things weren't really important to me even then, and sure in the hell aren't now. But they stay around. Now on the other hand, I'm sure my boss told me to do something, but I just can't remember what it might've been...
You speak of "reversibility" as if lost years of someone's life could be made up for with a paycheck. If that's the case, then human life has a measurable value, and your quandary is easily solved: pay the what the felon's projected remaining years are valued at directly to him or her prior to the execution.
Once again: Life sentences are reversible if we should find out that someone was wrongly convicted, at least to a greater degree then a death sentence. Of course we cannot give someone years of their life back, but AT LEAST we can give them the rest of their life, knowing that their name has been cleared of the crime they didn't commit. And if they did die in prison before they are found to be innocent, at least we didn't kill them. That is not to say such a situation would not still be tragic, granted, but there's something to be said for the blood not being on your hands.
If that isn't an acceptable solution, then no act of punishment could ever be considered just, and criminals shouldn't be punished at all for fear of unjustly punishing the innocent.
Not true or even near it, really. You are seeing a grey and multicolored world in shades of black and white. Some things are acceptable, some are not, and sometimes it is a question of degree. Deliberately killing another human being who is not an immediate threat to your life is one of those things which is not. Imprisoning a convicted criminal until such time as they can be rehabilitated and released safely is.
I can't believe you're old enough to be a father yet you're still this naive. Wise up.
I can't believe that someone who can't have a debate without attacking his opponent rather than his opponent's position is telling ME to "wise up.":) My opposition to the death penalty does not make me "naive" any more than your support for it makes you a bloodthirsty killer. We simply have a difference of opinion.
The only power the state has is coercive, the power of a gun. And things have never been any different (except for when the power was the power of a sword, and before then a sharp rock)
Absolutely wrong. The state can encourage or discourage things without expressly requiring or prohibiting them. In fact, ANY community of people can do that. Sometimes, social acceptance or condemnation of a given type of behavior can be as powerful an incentive or deterrent as the "power of the gun".
In fact, the current example here is an excellent example of that. Why does this man choose not to have his last name used, and still keep his crime secret from his in-laws? He certainly cannot be afraid that they'll report him to the state-the state already knows. They've already used their "coercive power" (jail time) against him, and are already threatening him with more if he does not comply entirely with his treatment. So what keeps him quiet? The threat of social condemnation.
Governments do FAR more than kill and coerce. You can argue up, down, and sideways about whether social programs such as welfare are the right thing to do or not, but certainly, they are an example of the government doing something else. Even your local town government setting up a Fourth of July parade (or the equivalent if you're outside the US) is an example of the government's power being used toward a benign end.
Exactly correct, and shows why, until we can have a system which never convicts an innocent person under any circumstances, we cannot even consider use of the death penalty. Ever. Since our system does (demonstrably) make mistakes, we must make sure that, at the very least, the mistake, if it turns out to be, is reversible. Letting someone out of prison with an apology (and a good-sized check, generally) if they are found to have been wrongfully convicted is possible. Pulling someone out of the ground and restoring them to life if it's found they were wrongfully executed is not.
While I am a father, and I certainly hate molesters as much as anyone, we can't let that cloud our judgment as to the proper way to operate a civilized society. Not using the state as an instrument of murder seems a good place to start, to me.
Actually, there are similar things, which are a hybrid of creation and evolution.
However, the more overarching point here is: Creation is a doctrine, and belongs in a church. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, and thereby, belongs in a science class. Creationism, not being a scientific theory, does NOT belong there.
Couldn't have been said better. I've used that particular argument against the damn Christian evangelizers myself-"Well, if the guy did design humanity, he's an idiot. I don't follow idiots."
Never have gotten any kind of meaningful response to that one, seems no one still cares to try here either.
Slashdot Mirror
Demonstrate to him that it will significantly lower his bills. If you can prove that standing on his head and clucking like a chicken will cut costs, he'll do it with a smile on his face. The way to the boss's heart is and always will be through his wallet.
Well, I don't know.
I was the one saying "There's likely no WMD's over there, but let the inspectors finish their work. Saddam likely wasn't dumb enough to keep 'em."
I was NOT the one saying "I know where they are."
I can factually support that Bush and his Cabinet said such things, and I can factually support that his supporters did so as well. I can also factually support that Bush and his supporters were WRONG, and those against the war were RIGHT.
Now spin that. I'm sure you'll try. But that's the FACT of the matter.
Why yes, let's stay with a system with evident flaws, instead of trying to change it to a model which may well be superior.
You go back to the Dark Ages, then. The rest of us will continue to advocate progress, not just "This is how it is so that's how it should stay." If that logic were followed to its conclusion, we would never have come out of our caves. To be human is to seek a better way.
While I would love to live in a Star Trek type of society- where everyone has what they need and everyone contributes - it is simply not the case.
Right...but what? Your logic is "It isn't the case, so it shouldn't be, and we shouldn't try?" The current system is not perfect, I dare anyone to argue otherwise, and that means we ought to be looking for ways to improve it.
Looks like you are absolutely right...and still absolutely wrong.
You are indeed correct on what the law says. However, "ownership" of an idea is bullshit, regardless of what the law says. The law used to permit "owning" another human being, but that was wrong, regardless of what the law said. The law also prohibited liberating one of these "owned" people, but those who did it were right, regardless of the fact that what they were doing was illegal.
Now, lay off the submit-flame button, I am NOT saying that the concept of IP is anywhere near the injustice and evil of slavery. I am simply trying to make the point that the fact that something is codified in law does not make it right, and the fact that it is against the law does not make it wrong.
Charge too much for something, and people will find another way to get it.
I wonder if there are any other businesses that could learn that lesson out there right now?
Excellently said, it's a shame I'm out of mod points.
When the users are paying for the costs of bandwidth, media, electricity, and every other cost of distribution, that is a far different scenario then a movie theater owner who is paying rent for the building, electricity for the lights, maintenance on the projector, cleaning for the floors/seats, and even water if you have to use the bathroom...I could go on. The point is, real, physical property != digital, intangible files.
Nope, but I just downloaded the whole thing. The copy protection works great, guys. ;)
While IANAL, that would seem to me to run afoul of both deceptive marketing (the product must do what you say it does, and NOT do what you say it doesn't) and promissory estoppel (if you agree not do something, and that can be proven, you are legally bound by it).
So yes, I think it could quite clearly be enforced, and any such information reported not only suppressed and barred from use in court, but a possible lawsuit -against- MPAA would likely be in the offing.
It depends. If the property you are sitting on and doing so is PRIVATE, they can throw you off of their REAL private property for any reason they like. However, if a public park adjoins the drive-in theater, they do NOT have the right to clear out the park at every showing.
When the movie theaters release a movie into the public sphere, they KNOW that people who didn't pay for it will see it along with those who do. This is an attempt to clear the park. Even if downloading didn't exist, what if I purchased (or rented) a movie, and invited 50 friends to see it?
When my debit card was stolen, almost $650 in charges were made to it before I noticed the next day and reported it. As soon as I reported it to the police, the bank reversed the charges. In the end, the bank has every bit the same authority as the credit card companies to "charge back" the merchants who allowed the unauthorized charge. It is (legally) the responsibility of the person or entity accepting the card as payment to verify that the person using the card is supposed to be, and it is the accepting merchant who will suffer a chargeback if they don't.
However, I noticed neither by a paper statement, nor an online one-in my case, the physical card was stolen, and I noticed it missing. Turned out it was stolen by my roommate who'd bought himself a bunch of bags, a Discman and bunch of CD's, etc., and skipped out of the state.
Back under the bridge, troll.
I am entirely a liberal, and entirely support this type of research, so long as it is sensibly and carefully controlled. Of course, at some point, there might be ethical issues raised, but let's be a little sensible here. Putting a human gene sequence or two into a mouse does not make that mouse some sort of "mini-human".
I could argue that it's typical conservative thinking that it's "tampering with God's order", and besides that, these scientists are considering -gasp- performing an abortion. Really, it has nothing to do with either-it is pro-progress thinkers vs. scared Luddites. And scared Luddites exist on -both- sides of the political spectrum.
Contrary to popular (and apparently your) belief, "liberal" is a DIFFERING OPINION, not a swear word. It is a philosophy, not a negative epithet. Not all idiots are liberals. (Don't believe me? Listen to Rush Limbaugh.) Granted, some are. (I've heard Michael Moore.) However, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore -both- fill their place very effectively-they convince those who are too dumb and sheeplike to examine an issue and form a real opinion. Once again, those people exist on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative line, and form the majority of Americans now.
And intelligent people exist in both camps, as well. I've met many intelligent conservatives. Demonizing your opposition, however, makes you look more like a rabble-rouser. That is not the way to an informed, reasonable debate.
Oh, and while I'm doing that, I'm supposed to take over 3 years to implement a real, meaningful security measure, since that might involve telling a -corporation- what to do.
Why you know, I think I'm learning this whole "national security" thing. Maybe I'll put in a resume for the Cabinet position...
And Iraq had a WMD, right? That bad old greenhouse-gas producing oil.
Except, we were going there to get some more of that stuff, not to stop its production...so I guess, in an odd way, we really DID go to Iraq over a WMD!
Of course, as it was before, they were producing very little of the stuff, so they weren't much of a threat at all...
And as I said, it's fine if someone wants to offer that, and it's fine if someone wants to pay for that. But the company should be up-front about it, not bury it in their fine print. If they claim they're still offering a product people want, well hell, they might be. But if they are, why bury the -real- terms in something the majority of customers don't read?
And yes, I know that people should read the fine print. That's why I do. But they know the majority of people don't, and stick land mines in there knowing that full well. That's dishonest, even if it's not technically illegal.
The guy with his finger on the nukyalur button can't even say "nuclear". Think about that one before bed tonight.
Please google for the string "dirty bomb".
That MAYBE, they would've done this, oh I don't know, say in October of 2001?
But silly me, what do I know about national security. Here I still think it's better to make less enemies than more.
I use Comcast, and can quite assure you that I've gone WELL over 2.5 gigs a day, between downloading several versions of Linux to try and running (perfectly legal stuff ;) ) over Bittorrent. I scoured their user agreements CAREFULLY for mention of a bandwidth cap and found no mention of such a thing. If they try to tag me with one, and it's still not in their subscriber agreement, they will be hit with a class-action false advertising suit.
In fact, while IANAL, it would seem to me that those saying "We offer 120000 Mbit/second connections!" and put the (but you can only use them for 2 GB/month) in the fine print of their AUP/TOS documents are guilty of false advertising. If you are offering a given speed, you are offering the ability (if someone so desires, which is rare anyway) to max out that connection for the entire month. If you are placing a bandwidth cap, the REAL speed you are offering would be:
(Monthly gigabyte limit)/(Number of seconds in month)=(Offered connection speed).
The logic here being, that if I can transfer a certain amount of data in a month with a dialup connection, and you limit me to transmitting that amount of data with a broadband, you are effectively selling me dialup. If I still want to pay an inflated price for the ability to use my whole monthly allotment in a few days, I can sure do that, but I should be informed properly by the company that that's all I'm getting for the money.
Of course, if we saw companies required to advertise THAT way, we wouldn't see them able to sucker people in by mentioning a blazing-fast speed in big red letters and then effectively nullifying it in the fine print. I imagine they just love that idea.
However, in Comcast's defense, I've never had problem #1 with them. I did have problems with the cable line on a couple of occasions, but they fixed it quickly both times and never tried to charge me. And they've certainly never said a word to me about my bandwidth use, which I know is very high most of the time. If they ever do, there'll be a fight...
Random garbage followed by a scam link is not "insightful".
Thank you.
However, there seems to be another difference...
Data on a hard drive, until the hard drive -does- begin to malfunction, is stored perfectly. That is, if I type a paragraph (or an entire book), save it, come back a year later, and reopen that file, then provided that the hard drive is functioning properly, that book will be pulled right back up, word-for-word. While the brain might remember the -idea- of the book, then chances are, if you are asked to repeat, word for word, the third paragraph on page 287, you will not be able to do so, even five minutes after reading it.
Of course, the ability to condense, interpret, and distill the important points out of information is what makes humans superior to computers. But there's something to be said for having a medium (paper and pen, computer, camera, whatever) that can store something exactly, and pull it up to refresh your memory (which likely still has the outline and highlights of important subjects, but may be missing the details) when the need be.
Also, whatever the brain may do, it doesn't always seem to work flawlessly at distinguishing important from unimportant. I have quite a few things pop into my head, at various times, some from when I was as young as 2. These things weren't really important to me even then, and sure in the hell aren't now. But they stay around. Now on the other hand, I'm sure my boss told me to do something, but I just can't remember what it might've been...
You speak of "reversibility" as if lost years of someone's life could be made up for with a paycheck. If that's the case, then human life has a measurable value, and your quandary is easily solved: pay the what the felon's projected remaining years are valued at directly to him or her prior to the execution.
Once again: Life sentences are reversible if we should find out that someone was wrongly convicted, at least to a greater degree then a death sentence. Of course we cannot give someone years of their life back, but AT LEAST we can give them the rest of their life, knowing that their name has been cleared of the crime they didn't commit. And if they did die in prison before they are found to be innocent, at least we didn't kill them. That is not to say such a situation would not still be tragic, granted, but there's something to be said for the blood not being on your hands.
If that isn't an acceptable solution, then no act of punishment could ever be considered just, and criminals shouldn't be punished at all for fear of unjustly punishing the innocent.
Not true or even near it, really. You are seeing a grey and multicolored world in shades of black and white. Some things are acceptable, some are not, and sometimes it is a question of degree. Deliberately killing another human being who is not an immediate threat to your life is one of those things which is not. Imprisoning a convicted criminal until such time as they can be rehabilitated and released safely is.
I can't believe you're old enough to be a father yet you're still this naive. Wise up.
I can't believe that someone who can't have a debate without attacking his opponent rather than his opponent's position is telling ME to "wise up." :) My opposition to the death penalty does not make me "naive" any more than your support for it makes you a bloodthirsty killer. We simply have a difference of opinion.
The only power the state has is coercive, the power of a gun. And things have never been any different (except for when the power was the power of a sword, and before then a sharp rock)
Absolutely wrong. The state can encourage or discourage things without expressly requiring or prohibiting them. In fact, ANY community of people can do that. Sometimes, social acceptance or condemnation of a given type of behavior can be as powerful an incentive or deterrent as the "power of the gun".
In fact, the current example here is an excellent example of that. Why does this man choose not to have his last name used, and still keep his crime secret from his in-laws? He certainly cannot be afraid that they'll report him to the state-the state already knows. They've already used their "coercive power" (jail time) against him, and are already threatening him with more if he does not comply entirely with his treatment. So what keeps him quiet? The threat of social condemnation.
Governments do FAR more than kill and coerce. You can argue up, down, and sideways about whether social programs such as welfare are the right thing to do or not, but certainly, they are an example of the government doing something else. Even your local town government setting up a Fourth of July parade (or the equivalent if you're outside the US) is an example of the government's power being used toward a benign end.
Exactly correct, and shows why, until we can have a system which never convicts an innocent person under any circumstances, we cannot even consider use of the death penalty. Ever. Since our system does (demonstrably) make mistakes, we must make sure that, at the very least, the mistake, if it turns out to be, is reversible. Letting someone out of prison with an apology (and a good-sized check, generally) if they are found to have been wrongfully convicted is possible. Pulling someone out of the ground and restoring them to life if it's found they were wrongfully executed is not.
While I am a father, and I certainly hate molesters as much as anyone, we can't let that cloud our judgment as to the proper way to operate a civilized society. Not using the state as an instrument of murder seems a good place to start, to me.
Says the AC troll posting to /. Back under the bridge, please.
Actually, there are similar things, which are a hybrid of creation and evolution.
However, the more overarching point here is: Creation is a doctrine, and belongs in a church. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, and thereby, belongs in a science class. Creationism, not being a scientific theory, does NOT belong there.
Couldn't have been said better. I've used that particular argument against the damn Christian evangelizers myself-"Well, if the guy did design humanity, he's an idiot. I don't follow idiots."
Never have gotten any kind of meaningful response to that one, seems no one still cares to try here either.