But a chicken (or mushroom) farm just stinks. It might be hazardous or merely nauseating, but I don't think it's quite the same level of outrage as a *chemical plant* stinking up a town. Maybe I'm being a big hippie, but I do draw a fundamental distnction between a chemical plant smell and a farm. But I also agree, having lived near sausage factories, chicken farms, mushroom farms, and more. These are uncomfortable, but are they *toxic?*
"Even today, that's probably about the best digital quality you're going to get in a 35mm-esque form factor."
Agreed. And if someone wanted to argue the point, show them the same strategy with a Hasselblad/medium format... Consumer digital is a joke compared to pro film. And Pro digital still has a long way to go before it's either cost-effective against film or superior.
Digital has advantages obviously. I got out of photography because I no longer had space for a darkroom. Also, someone might have a camera, but no money for film. Keep in mind we are talking about artists...
In order for you to "reject" this mail, you must receive it. By the time I've downloaded it and copied it to my local host, I don't really *CARE* if it gets filtered or not, because I consider that the damage has already been done. Ok, it's helpful that it gets deleted automatically by a filtering program, but that does NOT undo the damage as far as I'm concerned.
"The 2400dpi was so precise you could actually see where some black text bled on fibers of the bill."
How did the microprint come out?
I'm told (but I haven't had my hands on one since being told) that one feature of the newest bills is a figure of a "constellation" with some strange geometry that's hard to duplicate for some reason. I figure it's a fractal pattern.
Thought that was interesting, but I haven't gotten one of the technicolor bills from the ATM lately.
Well, Phil, your solution is a good approach -- and I do something similar.
But filtering your mail *after* you've received it only solves the part of the problem that relates to the value of your time and your annoyance threshhold. But it does absolutely nothing about the resources required to receive the unwanted mail in the first place, or to file them.
I wish I could run the MX for my domain on my own network (but my cable provider forbids it.) I wouldn't even open the SMTP socket for these assclowns. I'd blacklist entire continents, if that's what it took. My ISP cannot do that for me.
It really doesn't bother me so much to have to delete the spam from my folders, or read the occasional one that spamassassin misses, or whatever. But it does bother me that I have to receive the message in the first place.
People might flip through your photo albums, but NOBODY wants to sit through your slide show:-)
One thing I really wish I'd acquired from a previous place of business that was going out-of, was a parallel print device which printed a graphic image onto a 35mm slide. It took forever but it worked very well. I can't even remember who made that thing, but I think it must have been HP.
"I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera."
*EVERYBODY* had a Brownie, including me. And then, *EVERYBODY* had a Brownie 8mm camera, including me. I still have these.
When 126 film came out, Kodak enjoyed great sales of Instamatics. Polaroid, around 1969 if I remember correctly, had a great run that probably hurt Kodak seriously. "Squeeze and turn knob to best YES." Remember that?
Then 110 film came out. Again, the Kodak instamatic was EVERYWHERE.
I used to be an avid photographer, but once I smelled the air in a town with a film plant, I decided I couldn't support it anymore. I've been around all kinds of chemical plants, plastics mfg, etc. But the Kodak plant in Longview Texas takes the cake. That town is not just toxic, it's excruciatingly painful just to drive through on the interstate with your windows up and the vents sealed. The idea that anyone can live within 20 miles of that place really shocks me.
I don't think you have to be much of a tree hugger to be appalled by this. Even if you don't think there's health risks or environmental consequences, it's gotta be enough just that it's plain gross. Yet people live there, somehow or another.
"In fact it seems more likely that the RIAA folks are deliberately targeting people who are safe to hassle because they do not have those things."
Which is exactly the behavior that could lead to prosecution of the executives under Federal RICO statutes. It won't matter that the victims are low-profile people who don't come forward. The only relevant facts will be that someone with decision-making authority, knew or should have known (in the language of the law!) that the organization was systematically engaging in a corrupt practice.
>On the other hand, we are talking about the LAPD.
I'm talking about the FBI. And I'm serious. Once the RIAA crosses the line into a protection racket, they run the risk of being treated just like organized crime bosses (which is precisely what they become.)
"If the RIAA does not have any legal authority to say that, doesn't that make them guilty of several criminal charges?"
Of course it would, provided you had evidence.
Do you think the LA Weekly is a credible enough source that you feel comfortable inquiring into the matter with the California State Police, State and Federal Attorneys General, and the FBI?
If the incident described in the article had transpired with ME as the victim, it would not have ended before the "agents" had explained themselves to my local sherrif, and they'd continue to have explaining to do to my attorney afterwards.
However, I don't really believe the story happened precisely as reported. If it did happen, and if they do it again, someone needs to produce names and videotape. They also need to get the police involved, and they need to not hand over property voluntarily -- they need a court order to take your property. When it comes out that they threatened to "use handcuffs" to force you to surrender your property, any case where they are plaintiff drops like a hot potato. And somebody just might be going to jail.
Even the *cops* don't automatically get the authority to use handcuffs without following a procedure. (Haven't you ever been arrested in California?:-) They radio in for "Sevens" which means, authority to put the cuffs on you.)
>Wrong, Mr. Schultz. RIAA is not a law >enforcement division. They have no more right >than any other citizen to "confiscate" another >persons property.
What we don't have, is individual names of the people responsible. They should still be subject to prosecution for theft. Perhaps even racketeering charges, depending on whether they used a "protection" approach.
The individuals who did this should be looking at 20 years in federal for what they did, and the opportunity is still there to make it happen.
Provided, the story is true, and provided the victim will press charges. He's probably too afraid of beind deported or whatever. Or maybe afraid because the merchandise really was counterfeit.
>I was just wondering when this would start >happening.
I'll tell you exactly when it STOPS happening. When they try an illegal tactic like this against a person with the most vague clue, I don't know, like maybe they've seen an episode of COPS or Judge Judy?
"What police department did you say you were with?"
"Can you show me that search warrant again?"
"I'll need you to contact my attorney if you want any further information."
"Am I free to leave?"
"You won't mind if I just call the regular police and get their opinion about your offer to use handcuffs on me, right?"
"How about you step off my property right this minute, and I won't prosecute you for trespassing?"
***ANYTHING*** other than "here is all my property, please take it, and don't even leave me your card....
If nothing else, make them forcibly take your property, then you have a simple case of robbery, maybe armed robbery depending on how your state regards the weapon status handcuffs.
Hell you don't even give your property to the police when they arrest you on a felony, without a reciept and clear paperwork.
If you get taken by crooks, RIAA jacket or no RIAA jacket, you need to use some common sense and you also need to seek recourse to the law immediately.
There are stories about the counting rooms at the Sands when Howard Hughes owned it, that you really did get strip searched going in or out of there. That's from an account by Jimmy Fratianno.
Tony Soprano ain't got nuttin on Jimmy the Weasel.
Re:I wonder what took them so long...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 1
They analyze playing patterns with a positive feedback mechanism. It's called "comps." You voluntarily expose your play in return for perks from the hotel. Anything from free food to free meals to the show tickets that "nobody" gets. I just got 4th row tickets to see Elton John that way. Last season I got race tickets for pit row. All basically just for losing a couple hundred bucks playing craps:-)
Re:Link me to them...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It shows that you really do play, thanks for posting tgd.
People whose gambling experience consists of losing a roll of nickles in a slot machine, don't get it: You don't really want anonymity. You want the casino to know you're there, that you're playing, etc. You want to play in tourneys. You want comps. You want them to know you played, win or lose. If you're not picking up comps, you're missing half the strategy.
You don't want anonymity, you want them to notice you and say "Hello mister TGF, can I get you anything?"
"As such, they are free to do whatever they like to stem losses, gain advantage over customers, etc."
But they are NOT free to do whatever they like. The business is heavily regulated by the State, especially if you're talking about Nevada. RFID chips are A-Ok, I'm sure, but they are hardly free to do "whatever" they like.
Of course there is! But the news reports try to make you believe that the people who opted for the none-of-the-above option did not mean to do so. The spin on the report is certainly meant to imply that there was something wrong with people not voting for one of the seats.
There's no store to "get out" of, and it's likely that the guy selling tapes and CD's, and the other guy selling tamales, don't technically have a right to do what they are doing, it's just tolerated. At least that's the case in the Arizona town where I live.
Suicide rate in the military is low compared to the general population. I don't know what's supposed to come as a shock. That being in the military lowers your risk of death by suicide? Or that military recruits are less susceptible to certain mental illness?
"You expect the government to actually INSERT it's own democrat candidate just cause no democrat had the balls to actually run himself?"
No! But likewise, I don't expect the government to assume I should have voted anyway.
It's perfectly reasonable to abstain on just one race, even if there are many other races and issues on the same ballot. The election officials interviewed for the story do not seem to grasp the concept, that if I don't like any of the candidates for a given race, I'm not going to just pick one at random because it suits your user interface. I'm just not going to vote in that race. If that invalidates my whole ballot, that's a big problem. A big, make a Federal case out of it, problem.
Slashdot Mirror
But a chicken (or mushroom) farm just stinks. It might be hazardous or merely nauseating, but I don't think it's quite the same level of outrage as a *chemical plant* stinking up a town. Maybe I'm being a big hippie, but I do draw a fundamental distnction between a chemical plant smell and a farm. But I also agree, having lived near sausage factories, chicken farms, mushroom farms, and more. These are uncomfortable, but are they *toxic?*
"Even today, that's probably about the best digital quality you're going to get in a 35mm-esque form factor."
Agreed. And if someone wanted to argue the point,
show them the same strategy with a Hasselblad/medium format... Consumer digital is a joke compared to pro film. And Pro digital still has a long way to go before it's either cost-effective against film or superior.
Digital has advantages obviously. I got out of photography because I no longer had space for a darkroom. Also, someone might have a camera,
but no money for film. Keep in mind we are talking about artists...
In order for you to "reject" this mail, you must receive it. By the time I've downloaded it and copied it to my local host, I don't really *CARE* if it gets filtered or not, because I consider that the damage has already been done. Ok, it's helpful that it gets deleted automatically by a filtering program, but that does NOT undo the damage as far as I'm concerned.
>Or is that unneighborly
Last time I had my own sendmail, it had vast swaths of addresses filtered out at the firewall.
Yes, it's unneighborly, in the sense that my neighbor is a crackhouse or something and I keep my doors and windows locked.
I'd do it again, only much more aggressively, if only my ISP allowed it.
"The 2400dpi was so precise you could actually see where some black text bled on fibers of the bill."
How did the microprint come out?
I'm told (but I haven't had my hands on one since being told) that one feature of the newest bills is a figure of a "constellation" with some strange geometry that's hard to duplicate for some reason. I figure it's a fractal pattern.
Thought that was interesting, but I haven't gotten one of the technicolor bills from the ATM lately.
Well, Phil, your solution is a good approach -- and I do something similar.
But filtering your mail *after* you've received it only solves the part of the problem that relates to the value of your time and your annoyance threshhold. But it does absolutely nothing about the resources required to receive the unwanted mail in the first place, or to file them.
I wish I could run the MX for my domain on my own network (but my cable provider forbids it.) I wouldn't even open the SMTP socket for these assclowns. I'd blacklist entire continents, if that's what it took. My ISP cannot do that for me.
It really doesn't bother me so much to have to delete the spam from my folders, or read the occasional one that spamassassin misses, or whatever. But it does bother me that I have to receive the message in the first place.
>The market is there for both film and digital.
Amen. I just wish I could get Plus-X and Tri-X film, and some of the old papers.
>nothing beats good quality color film slides.
:-)
People might flip through your photo albums, but NOBODY wants to sit through your slide show
One thing I really wish I'd acquired from a previous place of business that was going out-of, was a parallel print device which printed a graphic image onto a 35mm slide. It took forever but it worked very well. I can't even remember who made that thing, but I think it must have been HP.
"I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera."
*EVERYBODY* had a Brownie, including me.
And then, *EVERYBODY* had a Brownie 8mm camera,
including me. I still have these.
When 126 film came out, Kodak enjoyed great sales of Instamatics. Polaroid, around 1969 if I remember correctly, had a great run that probably hurt Kodak seriously. "Squeeze and turn knob to best YES." Remember that?
Then 110 film came out. Again, the Kodak instamatic was EVERYWHERE.
I used to be an avid photographer, but once I smelled the air in a town with a film plant, I decided I couldn't support it anymore. I've been around all kinds of chemical plants, plastics mfg, etc. But the Kodak plant in Longview Texas takes the cake. That town is not just toxic, it's excruciatingly painful just to drive through on the interstate with your windows up and the vents sealed. The idea that anyone can live within 20 miles of that place really shocks me.
I don't think you have to be much of a tree hugger to be appalled by this. Even if you don't think there's health risks or environmental consequences, it's gotta be enough just that it's plain gross. Yet people live there, somehow or another.
>what lies at the galatic center?
A massive explosion that will sterilize Known Space in about 20,000 years. The Puppeteers have already fled.
"In fact it seems more likely that the RIAA folks are deliberately targeting people who are safe to hassle because they do not have those things."
Which is exactly the behavior that could lead to prosecution of the executives under Federal RICO statutes. It won't matter that the victims are low-profile people who don't come forward. The only relevant facts will be that someone with decision-making authority, knew or should have known (in the language of the law!) that the organization was systematically engaging in a corrupt practice.
>On the other hand, we are talking about the LAPD.
I'm talking about the FBI. And I'm serious. Once the RIAA crosses the line into a protection racket, they run the risk of being treated just like organized crime bosses (which is precisely what they become.)
>[Year 2000]
>Guess what happened?
Nothing?
"If the RIAA does not have any legal authority to say that, doesn't that make them guilty of several criminal charges?"
:-) They radio in for "Sevens" which means, authority to put the cuffs on you.)
Of course it would, provided you had evidence.
Do you think the LA Weekly is a credible enough source that you feel comfortable inquiring into the matter with the California State Police, State and Federal Attorneys General, and the FBI?
If the incident described in the article had transpired with ME as the victim, it would not have ended before the "agents" had explained themselves to my local sherrif, and they'd continue to have explaining to do to my attorney afterwards.
However, I don't really believe the story happened precisely as reported. If it did happen, and if they do it again, someone needs to produce names and videotape. They also need to get the police involved, and they need to not hand over property voluntarily -- they need a court order to take your property. When it comes out that they threatened to "use handcuffs" to force you to surrender your property, any case where they are plaintiff drops like a hot potato. And somebody just might be going to jail.
Even the *cops* don't automatically get the authority to use handcuffs without following a procedure. (Haven't you ever been arrested in California?
"Once the neocons completely bankrupt the treasury, there will be no police outside of the military."
And what makes you so certain there will even be a *military* willing to serve a bankrupt government?
>Wrong, Mr. Schultz. RIAA is not a law
>enforcement division. They have no more right
>than any other citizen to "confiscate" another
>persons property.
What we don't have, is individual names of the people responsible. They should still be subject to prosecution for theft. Perhaps even racketeering charges, depending on whether they used a "protection" approach.
The individuals who did this should be looking at 20 years in federal for what they did, and the opportunity is still there to make it happen.
Provided, the story is true, and provided the victim will press charges. He's probably too afraid of beind deported or whatever. Or maybe afraid because the merchandise really was counterfeit.
Or maybe it really didn't happen?
>I was just wondering when this would start
>happening.
I'll tell you exactly when it STOPS happening. When they try an illegal tactic like this against a person with the most vague clue, I don't know, like maybe they've seen an episode of COPS or Judge Judy?
"What police department did you say you were with?"
"Can you show me that search warrant again?"
"I'll need you to contact my attorney if you want any further information."
"Am I free to leave?"
"You won't mind if I just call the regular police and get their opinion about your offer to use handcuffs on me, right?"
"How about you step off my property right this minute, and I won't prosecute you for trespassing?"
***ANYTHING*** other than "here is all my property, please take it, and don't even leave me your card....
If nothing else, make them forcibly take your property, then you have a simple case of robbery, maybe armed robbery depending on how your state regards the weapon status handcuffs.
Hell you don't even give your property to the police when they arrest you on a felony, without a reciept and clear paperwork.
If you get taken by crooks, RIAA jacket or no RIAA jacket, you need to use some common sense and you also need to seek recourse to the law immediately.
There are stories about the counting rooms at the Sands when Howard Hughes owned it, that you really did get strip searched going in or out of there. That's from an account by Jimmy Fratianno.
Tony Soprano ain't got nuttin on Jimmy the Weasel.
They analyze playing patterns with a positive feedback mechanism. It's called "comps." You voluntarily expose your play in return for perks from the hotel. Anything from free food to free meals to the show tickets that "nobody" gets. :-)
I just got 4th row tickets to see Elton John that way. Last season I got race tickets for pit row. All basically just for losing a couple hundred bucks playing craps
It shows that you really do play, thanks for posting tgd.
People whose gambling experience consists of losing a roll of nickles in a slot machine, don't get it: You don't really want anonymity. You want the casino to know you're there, that you're playing, etc. You want to play in tourneys. You want comps. You want them to know you played, win or lose. If you're not picking up comps, you're missing half the strategy.
You don't want anonymity, you want them to notice you and say "Hello mister TGF, can I get you anything?"
"As such, they are free to do whatever they like to stem losses, gain advantage over customers, etc."
But they are NOT free to do whatever they like. The business is heavily regulated by the State, especially if you're talking about Nevada. RFID chips are A-Ok, I'm sure, but they are hardly free to do "whatever" they like.
"Ever heard of negative-voting - you vote against the candidate you don't want to win?"
That strategy is fine. Do that, or do what the people in Florida did, and just abstain for that part of the election.
Either way, don't try to tell me that puts the validity of my vote into question. Which is the point of the story.
>There IS a "None of the above" option.
Of course there is! But the news reports try to make you believe that the people who opted for the none-of-the-above option did not mean to do so. The spin on the report is certainly meant to imply that there was something wrong with people not voting for one of the seats.
They're harassing street vendors.
There's no store to "get out" of, and it's likely that the guy selling tapes and CD's, and the other guy selling tamales, don't technically have a right to do what they are doing, it's just tolerated. At least that's the case in the Arizona town where I live.
Suicide rate in the military is low compared to the general population. I don't know what's supposed to come as a shock. That being in the military lowers your risk of death by suicide? Or that military recruits are less susceptible to certain mental illness?
"You expect the government to actually INSERT it's own democrat candidate just cause no democrat had the balls to actually run himself?"
No! But likewise, I don't expect the government to assume I should have voted anyway.
It's perfectly reasonable to abstain on just one race, even if there are many other races and issues on the same ballot. The election officials interviewed for the story do not seem to grasp the concept, that if I don't like any of the candidates for a given race, I'm not going to just pick one at random because it suits your user interface. I'm just not going to vote in that race. If that invalidates my whole ballot, that's a big problem. A big, make a Federal case out of it, problem.