One (sometimes) good thing about authoritarian politicians: They really hate it when someone asserts a higher authority than their own.
The state governors and legislatures really don't like the idea that something like the drivers license will be put under national authority. If it's not for libertarian reasons, it's because they know damned well that the fees will go to a federal pot and not their own.
Re:Freedom of speech is more important than your k
on
Thailand Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
>The king realizes this. Read the article. It's some bureaucrat making this noise. Not the king.
Bureaucrat hasn't been warned by king to STFU or go to prison for 15 years *himself.* King could end this with a single word. Why hasn't he?
The article states "Thailand's... king [is] almost universally adored by Thais"
How would they know, if even minor dissent is punished with prison?
>It also means the artist gets no money from your purchase.
Then the artist has a big problem with the people he chose to represent him, and the actions they took on his behalf.
(I on the other hand, do not even buy used CDs very often. I buy them directly from the artist, or not at all. This has the added benefit for me, that my collection is unique, and that most of my CDs are autographed.)
"But I'm not yet ready to plunk down $100+ on MIDI interface hardware to complete the system until I can get a strong recommendation."
It's not clear from your question which latency you are most concerned about.
There is latency in the MIDI channel, where the delay between the input to the I/O device and output to the synth is unacceptable.
I think it's more likely that you are concerned about audio latency.
I wholeheartedly recommend a PCI M-Audio device. If you can work with two audio channels (stereo), get the Delta AP2496, and if you need a multitrack device, get the Delta 1010 -- the one with the outboard patch unit. These cards work particularly well in Linux, they are very high quality (well beyond any limits of human perception), and the company behind their chips doesn't play any "IP" games. In fact, the company openly and affirmatively supports the community.
That's for audio I/O as well as MIDI. If you are actually just talking about MIDI (that is, you aren't necessarily recording audio, you have hardware synths and want to control them from or through the computer), I have the same situation (lots of hardware synths, several controllers, in a live situation.) I use an Edirol UM-880 for MIDI, which works well using the midi-usb driver in ALSA.
That said, I don't generally use Linux for my music, at least not for performing or recording. I have a Linux audio machine setup for experimentation, and I use it for certain types of processing. I'm also beta testing the Linux version of energyXT http://www.energy-xt.com/ but the thing that stops me from converting fully to Linux for my music studio is the fact that certain of the virtual instruments and effects that I want to use, only work on Windows. This is the *only* situation where I use Windows, and I tweak my music studio machine to the point that the OS is nothing but a loader for my applications. I realize there are binary-compat ways to run Windows VST's on Linux. This summer I may have time to explore that as well.
I think there's a certain amount of irony in that I was a solid Linux user who switched to MacOSX, and ended up putting a Windows machine together for music. Like I said, this summer I may have some time to turn that whole situation on its head.
>is this not an occasion where RICO charges could be laid
It may be. Of course, you'd have to get the US Attorney General to agree and to act on it, and if you haven't noticed, he's kind of busy right now trying to keep himself out of jail.
>The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.
Hussein was no communist, but he was a diligent student of Stalin. He worshipped Stalin. He had the largest collection of Stalin-related material outside of Russia, including a certain photograph that I have not seen in years, of the old Joseph Stalin together with the young Saddam Hussein. He had an immense collection of Stalin papers, photos, and Russian books in one of the presidential libraries in Baghdad. I kind of wonder if all that history has been destroyed, in the name of destroying Hussein.
>Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway.
"We" told him rather explicitly that we would take a neutral position. The exact words were: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
Now, Hussein took that as a green light to invade, which was stupid and wrong, and ultimately a suicidal act. (Just because a politician tells you a lie you want to hear, does not mean you should assume it is safe to do some insane thing that's going to piss off someone with a giant army and lots of powerful friends who also have giant armies, etc.)
>We know nobody cares about that stuff in France, that's obvious. The point was that in America, all that would be a huge deal and >Royal wouldn't have had a chance of running for president because of it.
Basically there is a myth of "character" that exists in an American form of idealism. Nobody genuinely has all the characteristics of that mythical figure, but candidates must at least refrain from revealing anything that causes them to blatantly diverge from the ideal in the eyes of the public with regard to its contemporary zeitgeist.
Anyone who profits from war, should be required to invest those profits in war bonds, not redeemable for the duration. Operating costs only, and those are subject to approval.
>That example is NOT about freedom of speech, but about property rights.
Actually, the "yell fire in a theatre" idiom was used as an example to justify the government's authority to suppress a person's right to hand out flyers opposing the WWI draft.
>Suppose, for example, that someone's Valuable Intellectual Property were, through pure coincidence, protected by the key >"sony.com", by the contents of http://www.riaa.com/ or by the image of Mickey Mouse?
I think the only successful attack against the **AA will come from within. One of its own members will see the light, recognize the organization as competition, and destroy it.
>That includes being able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If you're not allowed to do that, then you do not truly have >freedom of speech.
If the theatre happens to be on fire, then you will probably have the gratitude of the people within.
If the theatre happens to NOT be on fire, you may face consequences at the hands of those same people.
In no case was "yelling fire" illegal. However, intentionally causing a panic and creating a public nuisance, *is* illegal.
On the other hand, the allusion to yelling fire was meant to illustrate the basis for a doctrine that a compelling state interest existed that could justify the suppression of certain activities that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. In particular, "yelling fire" was an example used in a case that ruled it illegal to distribute flyers opposing the military draft during WWI. I think it is also important to understand that this ruling was overturned, which probably means it *is* legal to protest against a draft during wartime.
If you experiment with "yelling fire", you will probably find that no law actively suppresses your right to do it, and you will also almost certainly find that no law protects you from the ass kicking you receive as a result -- or from the harsh manner in which you are removed from the theatre by its proprietor or the police.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was helping to establish what rights were, and to what extent the expression of one's rights were allowed to abridge the rights of others.
Today, the test for whether first amendment protections my be abridged on any activity, is if the state can argue that it is intended to, and will likely incite "imminent lawless action", a stricter standard than the "clear and present danger" which had existed before 1969. Essentially the government may "place time, place and manner" restrictions on First Amendment activities, if it can argue that the activities are likely to cause a riot.
For what it's worth, I do believe the Federal Government has clearly failed to adhere to this standard on numerous occasions.
>One of our goals in Iraq was to win the hearts and minds of that country
Have you actually read the authorization passed by Congress to invade Iraq? The purpose of going into Iraq was to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." The justification for this authorization was based on a perceived public mandate to remove the Hussein government from power, and to find and destroy its stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
"Winning the hearts and minds" was media hyperbole which had nothing to do with the legal basis for the war.
They were supposed to welcome the coalition forces with chocolates and flowers. Chocolate is not only forbidden by several Islamic sects, but is also not produced in any significant quantity in the region. Likewise ornamental flowers were not produced there at all. Were the Iraqis supposed violate the trade sanctions in order to import chocolate from Europe and flowers from Israel, just so they could live up to the expectations that were put upon them? I have never received satisfactory answers as to precisely HOW they Iraqis were supposed to give that exact sort of welcome to their "liberators", when in order for them to even do so, they would have been forced to violate the very sanctions which were held as a pretext for the invasion itself.
It's not another planet, it's the other side of the table.
Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make the decision to fire someone? It a corporate environment where you were not the sole authority? You would not believe how complicated the process is, when there is *cause*.
>why is it again the employer isn't allowed the same privilege?
One argument stems from the idea that it is in the interest of the state that the employee/employer relationship is weighted in favor of the employee. See, a corporation can generally afford to lose an employee, and it will not have a significant effect on that corporations ability to continue to do business. On the other hand, if an employee loses his job, he often becomes a burden on the state immediately, and if he fails to find another job, he becomes an increasingly expensive burden on the state (even if the state does nothing for him directly.)
So there is an argument that the employer should have certain responsibilities to the employee, where the employee's responsibilities are asymmetric. And there is a compelling state interest in this argument, so there is a basis by which it could be coded into law.
>Are U.S. Attorneys a protected class? No, but Congress is investigating why some of them were fired even though they can be fired for >any reason or no reason. Pure BS.
Uh, Congress is investigating because reasons *were* given that turned out to be lies. Congress doesn't care as much about the Attorneys issue as it does about officials lying to them.
>I don't advocate virtual vigilantism. But where's the logic in the above question?
The competitor is not advertising his *own* business (in the hypothetical scenario), it's just one of many ways to gain a slight advantage by costing the competitor resources. Anybody who sinks this low probably is doing other things as well.
>It was more than "small drops of blood". The front passenger seat in his car had been removed and >hasn't been recovered yet.
I understand all about rules of evidence and presumption of innocence, but this was a very strange detail.
I've been a vintage car enthusiast for a long, long time, and I could probably name the time, place, and parties to almost every single car part that was ever traded, installed, or removed from one of my cars. I'd definitely be able to tell you what happened to something as significant as a passenger seat. Of course, in my case, that would probably be the whole front seat from a 1959 Chevrolet which would be a $3000 part, but still. It's weird that we know about the seat, the tools, the blood, but we don't know Hans' explanation. Without his explanation, the jury is only going to hear the prosecutor's theory, which is going to sound quite plausible to a jury.
>Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq and then ponder whether the US leaders learn from history.
There are actually very few strong parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, although the meme is convenient. What do Vietnam and Iraq have in common, that they do not share with *all* unpopular foreign wars?
>I'll bet there are small drops of most peoples blood in their cars and houses.
But, there are not usually drops of blood around the passenger seat which has been recently, hastily removed. Reiser my be innocent, but I suspect that damn car seat is going to be a *big* problem for a jury.
I'm not sure what the rules are, as for the information about Sturgeon. There's a possibility that the jury never hears a word about him.
It works for a quarter or two, and it is absolutely required these days, on the resume of a director, that you have done it.
That's all that matters. The quarter after you leave, the plan can collapse. That just gives the next person a good place to start so they can show gains.
I bought my Macbook Pro specifically because it was the first notebook I had tried that ran a unix-like OS with working power management. This represented me finally giving up on having a linux notebook with fully working power management. I have since realized that I am only one of very many who have switched from Linux to Mac, at least for portable use.
>If I manipulate a listener, a la Iago and Othello, so that the listener is no longer aware of why >or what he's doing, and then unleash the listener against some target, I have done no harm to the >target?
It's not at all clear that you've committed a *crime*.
Slashdot Mirror
>why are feet considered offensive?
They walk on shit. At least, they always did in the pre-industrial agrarian world.
One (sometimes) good thing about authoritarian politicians: They really hate it when someone asserts a higher authority than their own.
The state governors and legislatures really don't like the idea that something like the drivers license will be put under national authority. If it's not for libertarian reasons, it's because they know damned well that the fees will go to a federal pot and not their own.
>The king realizes this. Read the article. It's some bureaucrat making this noise. Not the king.
... king [is] almost universally adored by Thais"
Bureaucrat hasn't been warned by king to STFU or go to prison for 15 years *himself.* King could end this with a single word. Why hasn't he?
The article states "Thailand's
How would they know, if even minor dissent is punished with prison?
>It also means the artist gets no money from your purchase.
Then the artist has a big problem with the people he chose to represent him, and the actions they took on his behalf.
(I on the other hand, do not even buy used CDs very often. I buy them directly from the artist, or not at all. This has the added benefit for me, that my collection is unique, and that most of my CDs are autographed.)
"But I'm not yet ready to plunk down $100+ on MIDI interface hardware to complete the system until I can get a strong recommendation."
It's not clear from your question which latency you are most concerned about.
There is latency in the MIDI channel, where the delay between the input to the I/O device and output to the synth is unacceptable.
I think it's more likely that you are concerned about audio latency.
I wholeheartedly recommend a PCI M-Audio device. If you can work with two audio channels (stereo), get the Delta AP2496, and if you need a multitrack device, get the Delta 1010 -- the one with the outboard patch unit. These cards work particularly well in Linux, they are very high quality (well beyond any limits of human perception), and the company behind their chips doesn't play any "IP" games. In fact, the company openly and affirmatively supports the community.
That's for audio I/O as well as MIDI. If you are actually just talking about MIDI (that is, you aren't necessarily recording audio, you have hardware synths and want to control them from or through the computer), I have the same situation (lots of hardware synths, several controllers, in a live situation.) I use an Edirol UM-880 for MIDI, which works well using the midi-usb driver in ALSA.
That said, I don't generally use Linux for my music, at least not for performing or recording. I have a Linux audio machine setup for experimentation, and I use it for certain types of processing. I'm also beta testing the Linux version of energyXT http://www.energy-xt.com/ but the thing that stops me from converting fully to Linux for my music studio is the fact that certain of the virtual instruments and effects that I want to use, only work on Windows. This is the *only* situation where I use Windows, and I tweak my music studio machine to the point that the OS is nothing but a loader for my applications. I realize there are binary-compat ways to run Windows VST's on Linux. This summer I may have time to explore that as well.
I think there's a certain amount of irony in that I was a solid Linux user who switched to MacOSX, and ended up putting a Windows machine together for music. Like I said, this summer I may have some time to turn that whole situation on its head.
>is this not an occasion where RICO charges could be laid
It may be. Of course, you'd have to get the US Attorney General to agree and to act on it, and if you haven't noticed, he's kind of busy right now trying to keep himself out of jail.
>The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.
Hussein was no communist, but he was a diligent student of Stalin. He worshipped Stalin. He had the largest collection of Stalin-related material outside of Russia, including a certain photograph that I have not seen in years, of the old Joseph Stalin together with the young Saddam Hussein. He had an immense collection of Stalin papers, photos, and Russian books in one of the presidential libraries in Baghdad. I kind of wonder if all that history has been destroyed, in the name of destroying Hussein.
>Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway.
"We" told him rather explicitly that we would take a neutral position. The exact words were: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
Now, Hussein took that as a green light to invade, which was stupid and wrong, and ultimately a suicidal act. (Just because a politician tells you a lie you want to hear, does not mean you should assume it is safe to do some insane thing that's going to piss off someone with a giant army and lots of powerful friends who also have giant armies, etc.)
>We know nobody cares about that stuff in France, that's obvious. The point was that in America, all that would be a huge deal and
>Royal wouldn't have had a chance of running for president because of it.
Basically there is a myth of "character" that exists in an American form of idealism. Nobody genuinely has all the characteristics of that mythical figure, but candidates must at least refrain from revealing anything that causes them to blatantly diverge from the ideal in the eyes of the public with regard to its contemporary zeitgeist.
Anyone who profits from war, should be required to invest those profits in war bonds, not redeemable for the duration.
Operating costs only, and those are subject to approval.
>That example is NOT about freedom of speech, but about property rights.
Actually, the "yell fire in a theatre" idiom was used as an example to justify the government's authority to suppress a person's right to hand out flyers opposing the WWI draft.
>Suppose, for example, that someone's Valuable Intellectual Property were, through pure coincidence, protected by the key
>"sony.com", by the contents of http://www.riaa.com/ or by the image of Mickey Mouse?
I think the only successful attack against the **AA will come from within. One of its own members will see the light, recognize the organization as competition, and destroy it.
>That includes being able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If you're not allowed to do that, then you do not truly have
>freedom of speech.
If the theatre happens to be on fire, then you will probably have the gratitude of the people within.
If the theatre happens to NOT be on fire, you may face consequences at the hands of those same people.
In no case was "yelling fire" illegal. However, intentionally causing a panic and creating a public nuisance, *is* illegal.
On the other hand, the allusion to yelling fire was meant to illustrate the basis for a doctrine that a compelling state interest existed that could justify the suppression of certain activities that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. In particular, "yelling fire" was an example used in a case that ruled it illegal to distribute flyers opposing the military draft during WWI. I think it is also important to understand that this ruling was overturned, which probably means it *is* legal to protest against a draft during wartime.
If you experiment with "yelling fire", you will probably find that no law actively suppresses your right to do it, and you will also almost certainly find that no law protects you from the ass kicking you receive as a result -- or from the harsh manner in which you are removed from the theatre by its proprietor or the police.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was helping to establish what rights were, and to what extent the expression of one's rights were allowed to abridge the rights of others.
Today, the test for whether first amendment protections my be abridged on any activity, is if the state can argue that it is intended to, and will likely incite "imminent lawless action", a stricter standard than the "clear and present danger" which had existed before 1969. Essentially the government may "place time, place and manner" restrictions on First Amendment activities, if it can argue that the activities are likely to cause a riot.
For what it's worth, I do believe the Federal Government has clearly failed to adhere to this standard on numerous occasions.
>One of our goals in Iraq was to win the hearts and minds of that country
Have you actually read the authorization passed by Congress to invade Iraq? The purpose of going into Iraq was to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." The justification for this authorization was based on a perceived public mandate to remove the Hussein government from power, and to find and destroy its stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
"Winning the hearts and minds" was media hyperbole which had nothing to do with the legal basis for the war.
They were supposed to welcome the coalition forces with chocolates and flowers. Chocolate is not only forbidden by several Islamic sects, but is also not produced in any significant quantity in the region. Likewise ornamental flowers were not produced there at all. Were the Iraqis supposed violate the trade sanctions in order to import chocolate from Europe and flowers from Israel, just so they could live up to the expectations that were put upon them? I have never received satisfactory answers as to precisely HOW they Iraqis were supposed to give that exact sort of welcome to their "liberators", when in order for them to even do so, they would have been forced to violate the very sanctions which were held as a pretext for the invasion itself.
It's not another planet, it's the other side of the table.
Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make the decision to fire someone? It a corporate environment where you were not the sole authority? You would not believe how complicated the process is, when there is *cause*.
>why is it again the employer isn't allowed the same privilege?
One argument stems from the idea that it is in the interest of the state that the employee/employer relationship is weighted in favor of the employee. See, a corporation can generally afford to lose an employee, and it will not have a significant effect on that corporations ability to continue to do business. On the other hand, if an employee loses his job, he often becomes a burden on the state immediately, and if he fails to find another job, he becomes an increasingly expensive burden on the state (even if the state does nothing for him directly.)
So there is an argument that the employer should have certain responsibilities to the employee, where the employee's responsibilities are asymmetric. And there is a compelling state interest in this argument, so there is a basis by which it could be coded into law.
>Are U.S. Attorneys a protected class? No, but Congress is investigating why some of them were fired even though they can be fired for
>any reason or no reason. Pure BS.
Uh, Congress is investigating because reasons *were* given that turned out to be lies. Congress doesn't care as much about the Attorneys issue as it does about officials lying to them.
>I don't advocate virtual vigilantism. But where's the logic in the above question?
The competitor is not advertising his *own* business (in the hypothetical scenario), it's just one of many ways to gain a slight advantage by costing the competitor resources. Anybody who sinks this low probably is doing other things as well.
>if you were hired as an "at will" employee, sure you can be fired without cause. and you can quit without cause.
If you bring genuine value to your employer, they will consider carefully before letting you go for a frivolous cause.
>It was more than "small drops of blood". The front passenger seat in his car had been removed and
>hasn't been recovered yet.
I understand all about rules of evidence and presumption of innocence, but this was a very strange detail.
I've been a vintage car enthusiast for a long, long time, and I could probably name the time, place, and parties to almost every single car part that was ever traded, installed, or removed from one of my cars. I'd definitely be able to tell you what happened to something as significant as a passenger seat. Of course, in my case, that would probably be the whole front seat from a 1959 Chevrolet which would be a $3000 part, but still. It's weird that we know about the seat, the tools, the blood, but we don't know Hans' explanation. Without his explanation, the jury is only going to hear the prosecutor's theory, which is going to sound quite plausible to a jury.
>Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq and then ponder whether the US leaders learn from history.
There are actually very few strong parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, although the meme is convenient. What do Vietnam and Iraq have in common, that they do not share with *all* unpopular foreign wars?
>I'll bet there are small drops of most peoples blood in their cars and houses.
But, there are not usually drops of blood around the passenger seat which has been recently, hastily removed. Reiser my be innocent, but I suspect that damn car seat is going to be a *big* problem for a jury.
I'm not sure what the rules are, as for the information about Sturgeon. There's a possibility that the jury never hears a word about him.
>They just cut nearly half our team Tuesday, wtihout even notifying the customer (Who is going
>apeshit).
Going apeshit, I presume, does not involve filing a TRO and a lawsuit.
>I thought I heard that doesn't work.
It works for a quarter or two, and it is absolutely required these days, on the resume of a director, that you have done it.
That's all that matters. The quarter after you leave, the plan can collapse. That just gives the next person a good place to start so they can show gains.
I bought my Macbook Pro specifically because it was the first notebook I had tried that ran a unix-like OS with working power management. This represented me finally giving up on having a linux notebook with fully working power management. I have since realized that I am only one of very many who have switched from Linux to Mac, at least for portable use.
>If I manipulate a listener, a la Iago and Othello, so that the listener is no longer aware of why
>or what he's doing, and then unleash the listener against some target, I have done no harm to the
>target?
It's not at all clear that you've committed a *crime*.