The problem isn't THEIR reading comprehension, it's YOUR logic. In criminal cases the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case proceeds to court, it is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt. The prosecutor can only prove that a crime did occur. He can introduce circumstantial evidence that the accused was likely the offending party due to his/her ownership of the vehicle. The accused does not HAVE to prove someone else drove the car, only introduce reasonable doubt that someone else COULD!!!!
They ARE NOT illegal, as the case has not been decided.
You are wrong.
I did read the link. There was nothing there I didn't already know.
The court has made a ruling. As the case now stands, it is currently ILLEGAL. The case is under appeal and the remedy has been stayed pending appeal. You obviously do not understand.
Think about it this way. If you go to trial and are convicted of fraud, (for instance) the fact that you are freed pending appeal does not change the fact you were convicted.
If Bush is successful on his appeals you will be free to argue that it is not illegal, but as it stands now, the verdict was already rendered in the District Court. It is illegal.
Hell, anybody who would describe themself as a Republican today is one or more of the following: Coward, fool, traitor.
Bite me Darby.
You are what is wrong with politics today, left and right: sweeping overgeneralization, ad hominem attacks, irrational hatred from the fringes, and just being a dick in general.
My reasoning for my political stance is my own business and if you believe you are representative of the Democratic Party, that alone is reason enough to be a Republican.
Nothing has been decided on their legality, claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
Au contraire... It HAS been decided and is now case law. You are correct in that the implementation of the court order has been stayed pending appeal. If the appeal is successful and the decision is overturned, it may be argued all the way to the Supreme Court, but as it stands today, it IS illegal.
I only offered my declaration to reinforce that my opinion was not politically motivated. The GOP is horribly broken. Listen to Pat Buchanan for serious insight on how much damage Bush has done to the party. He has all but insured a Democratic President in the next election.
Between the Iraqi debacle, amnesty for illegals, illegal spying, and a general push for bigger and more invasive government, it will be a long time before I can vote for another Repuiblican. I will have to waste my vote on a third party candidate.;-)
If you typed a passphrase into a Windows machine, would you bet your freedom that the passphrase wouldn't show up in "strings/dev/hda", in a swap file, in an MRU list, or in the files of whatever spyware happened to infect that machine? Or that potentially incriminating file names wouldn't be tucked in the registry someplace?
Nope.
But I would feel a little more secure if I had a Linux machine with LUKS random autogenerated one-time-pad encrypted/tmp and swap directories and I type this into a terminal:
sudo truecrypt/media/files/myjunk.tc/media/crypto
I just wish I could find a livecd that has truecrypt and vmware player installed...
children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults
Not my kids. Their skulls are incredibly thick and I haven't noticed them absorb anything directed at them.
Re:Pop music's quality doesn't match it's price
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
Denying security updates for certain products would be a good example. Norton has a good system for this
Unfortunately, Symantec has decided to dedicate all of its development resources into antipiracy technology and its core products have declined. System Mechanic is what the Norton Utilities should be. There are many better antivirus products available, some of which are free to home users.
Symantec has decided to squeeze every penny out of a flagging product line and people are jumping ship in droves. All of my clients have completely abandoned Norton. Who wants to pay essentially full price every year just for updates?
If this is your idea of a good system, I would love to see what you consider a bad one.
Literally, I believe it means to reduce to a tenth part, or by 90%. The music industry may have taken some hard times, but has their business declined by 90% since 1999? Even the RIAA would not claim that. Dvorak, you keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
It means to destroy a tenth, not leave a tenth or to destroy a great number or proportion of
decimate
-verb (used with object), -mated, -mating.
1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3. Obsolete. to take a tenth of or from.
[Origin: 1590-1600; L decimtus, ptp. of decimre to punish every tenth man chosen by lot, v. deriv. of decimus tenth, deriv. of decem ten; see ate1]
And the theft (or what you want to euphemise as only *copyright infringement*, which is just another name for theft of copyright)
It IS copyright infringement. You are the one "euphemistically" calling it "Theft." Theft of copyright would mean stealing the legal RIGHTS to be able to republish the works. Since Viacom still maintains their copyright, it CLEARLY has not been stolen. Nothing has been stolen. Working yourself up into a lathered frenzy doesn't change anything either. The so-called crime (actually it is a civil tort, not a crime) is that some Viacom works have been published without permission. The legal question is whether or not Google is responsible for the actions of its users.
For instace, refer the case of small pictures on Google News that Google *lost*.
WRONG!!! First of all, they lost a case for publishing news summaries from online newpapers, not small pictures. Second, Google the company, was creating the summaries, not independent users. Third, it was in BELGIUM, not the US. Fourth, Belgian law may not provide for common carrier exemptions like US law does, not that it would even apply for that particular case anyway, which was about fair use.
You have been drinking the RIAA kool-aid for too long. You are confusing legal issues. Your rabid reaction to a not so cut-and-dried case demonstrate you clearly have no understanding of what exactly copyright is. Next time, leave the thoughtful commentary to your betters.
In meatspace, we already have constraints on distribution channels for so-called "adult" material. I can send my kid to Toys R Us and know that he won't find porn.
How about you do what I do? I actually monitor what my kids surf. I monitor proxy logs and history files. I watch over their shoulders. They never know when dad is silently connected with VNC watching their every move. I also have the machine password protected (which changes regularly). The have to ask permission to surf the net and have me log them in. It has worked out remarkably well. They get their school assignements done and still get to surf recreationally. They have been honest and never lost computer privileges.
It sounds to me that you want somebody else to do your job raising your kids for you. You expect your "content blocker" to do the work and when it invariably fails, everybody else can "segregate" the content for you so you don't have to actually monitor your kids yourself. You wouldn't (I hope) drop your kids off alone in front of a porn shop and expect others to keep them out of trouble, "meatspace constraints" notwithstanding.
A misguided bill like this might (if it actually passed Constitutional muster) make it more difficult to find porn, like your content filter, but a curious and resourceful child will find it anyway. Besides, Utah will never be able to force their plan on the rest of the world and the Internet is a world media. If you want a foolproof method to protect your child from the wicked Internet, sell your computer and unsubscribe from your ISP.
If GSM (at least, not sure about CDMA), check web/manual. If there's no menu option to control 'delay before voicemail', there'll be a #code... along the lines of "#[two digits]*[seconds before divert]#". Although most networks won't let you set it above 30 seconds or so.
I guess I wasn't real clear about that. In a good coverage area it rings four times before voicemail. In a poor coverage area it rings maybe twice, maybe once, maybe four times, maybe none. The calling party hears four rings. My RAZR, on the other hand, works perfectly in the same area. Her Nokia is a very unreliable phone.
I guess my whole point is that the hardware is as important as the carrier. A good carrier with a crappy phone is useless.
Cingular hands down is the best cellular phone company out there! [...] From personal experience I would have to say that 99.9% of the time her Cingular phone has at least 3 bars even when my Altell has none or one.
My wife and I have Cingular. I paid $100 (with $100 rebate after 60 days) for a quad-band Motorola RAZR and she opted to get the free up front dual-band Nokia 6030. My phone is crystal clear and I have never seen less than three bars. It always rings. I have superb coverage.
My wife's phone sucks ass. It may only ring once or twice before going to voice mail. In low coverage areas, it sounds like she is walking outside during a windstorm. In areas where I have good reception, her phone drops calls and may have no service at all. In some places I have three bars and she has none.
I learned my lesson about the "free" phones when I got stuck paying for two years of lousy service with a piece of junk LG phone from Verizon. It worked about as well as my wife's Nokia. Before I signed up again for two years of monthly payments, I did a little digging on the net on cell phone reception and reliability.
Well, I'm not wrong about the article summary being wrong,
The subtleties of the English language... "Phones must be chargable through USB" does not preclude another charging method. Since the summary did not say that phones "must use only USB for charging," the summary is essentially correct. A quick glance at the reference article at "The People's Daily Online" verifies that this is the intent of the new "rule". (And it is described as a rule in the article at Techdirt, but is described as a standard in The Peoples Daily Online.)
Would have worked better if the other place was giving away the food they'd stolen from the original restaurant, huh?
A better analogy would be the other place was serving food made with the same recipe as the restaurant. Oh... But recipes are not copyrightable. Tough luck.
However, musicians can be legally contracted (and often are.) They expect to be paid. However, if people are stealing their music, the record companies do not pay them regardless; they say too bad, suck it.
If a musician enters into a contract with a record company, the record company should be held to the terms of the contract. God knows the musician will. If the contract is unfair and one sided (as they generally are) the musician has nobody to blame but himself. Record companies count on the greed factor to cloud the judgment of most record contract signees. They always bank on the belief that they will be the next Britney Spears. When you make a deal with the devil, expect to get burned.
Copyright is horribly broken. Nobody can argue with a straight face that 95 year copyrights encourage the useful arts. Horribly one-sided and draconian laws have bred contempt for the entire idea of copyright. Apologists for greedy media companies have nobody to blame but themselves for their current predicament. When millions of people every day willingly face lawsuits to share music with each other, the record companies need to sit up and take notice. They are obviously doing something very wrong.
Look at it this way: if you have a job at a restaurant as a waiter, and no customers come in that day because someplace else is giving away food for free, do you still expect to get paid?
Yes, I expect to be paid for any time on the job because I am a legally contracted employee. Now... Do you think that the "someplace else" giving away free food should be construed as somehow illegal or immoral? FISH pantries and soup kitchens do this all the time.
As an ex-Republican (Bush created a lot of us) who still leans conservative at least on economic issues, this is no surprise to me. What is interesting to me is that a party that includes some pretty intelligent people seems to primarily target idiots in their rhetoric.
As a Libertarian/Republican, I voted a straight Democratic ticket to send the Republicans a message. My support cannot be taken for granted. There is no excuse for the current Congress.
I will not vote Republican again until there is atonement for:
The K Street scandal
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Repeal of Posse Comitatus
PATRIOT II
Warrantless wiretaps
Telephone record data mining
Border control
Earmarking and Sen Stevens attempts to keep it hidden
Fiscal irresponsibility
I did not support the invasion of Iraq before it occured; I thought it was foolish. I did however, support the invasion of Afghanistan. Now we have a bellicose Iran to deal with as well as an unrepentant and bellicose North Korea. We are in deep shit.
Every time I take my kids to the movies I always make it a point to embarrass them about the cost. My son always begs me, "Please dad, not this time...", but I always do it anyway.
When they give me the bill, I always say, "But I didn't want to buy it. I only wanted to watch it."
Posting on a forum that you have downloaded lots and lots of albums is close enough to a confession for me. No idea if it would be admissible in court, but hell, the RIAA have tried stupider things.
Uh huh... And just suppose that your machine was compromised and all your passwords were stolen. If the thief posted online that you had a pirate copy of all of Adobe's software, would you still be so quick to meet out punishment for confessions?
And in spite of that, you are aware that the RIAA prosecutes individuals that offer copyrighted songs for download, not those that download for themselves. I can download every song in the catalog and if I disallow uploads, the RIAA totally ignores me.
May I suggest that instead of screenshots and other flimsy evidence, the RIAA concentrate on, say, people on forums etc who brag about downloading shitloads of albums off BitTorrent? Written evidence, usually (knowing the "I downloaded 23890248230 albums, aren't I so fucking l33t" crowd) accompanied by screenshots of their music folders. Evidence, see?
Might I suggest that "bragging" does not constitute evidence. If it did, John Mark Karr would be on trial for murder. And if you think "screenshots" are solid evidence, I suggest you spend a few minutes at your grocery checkout line browsing the "Weekly World News" or better yet do a Google search on Reuters fauxtographer Adnan Hajj.
The whole point of the decision is that reliable physical evidence is necessary for a conviction.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't THEIR reading comprehension, it's YOUR logic. In criminal cases the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case proceeds to court, it is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt. The prosecutor can only prove that a crime did occur. He can introduce circumstantial evidence that the accused was likely the offending party due to his/her ownership of the vehicle. The accused does not HAVE to prove someone else drove the car, only introduce reasonable doubt that someone else COULD!!!!
Does that finally compute?
I did read the link. There was nothing there I didn't already know.
The court has made a ruling. As the case now stands, it is currently ILLEGAL. The case is under appeal and the remedy has been stayed pending appeal. You obviously do not understand.
Think about it this way. If you go to trial and are convicted of fraud, (for instance) the fact that you are freed pending appeal does not change the fact you were convicted.
If Bush is successful on his appeals you will be free to argue that it is not illegal, but as it stands now, the verdict was already rendered in the District Court. It is illegal.
Bite me Darby.
You are what is wrong with politics today, left and right: sweeping overgeneralization, ad hominem attacks, irrational hatred from the fringes, and just being a dick in general.
My reasoning for my political stance is my own business and if you believe you are representative of the Democratic Party, that alone is reason enough to be a Republican.
Au contraire... It HAS been decided and is now case law. You are correct in that the implementation of the court order has been stayed pending appeal. If the appeal is successful and the decision is overturned, it may be argued all the way to the Supreme Court, but as it stands today, it IS illegal.
I only offered my declaration to reinforce that my opinion was not politically motivated. The GOP is horribly broken. Listen to Pat Buchanan for serious insight on how much damage Bush has done to the party. He has all but insured a Democratic President in the next election.
;-)
Between the Iraqi debacle, amnesty for illegals, illegal spying, and a general push for bigger and more invasive government, it will be a long time before I can vote for another Repuiblican. I will have to waste my vote on a third party candidate.
Ahem... It was declared illegal last year by a district court judge.
0 60817.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs20
It is flat-out wrong to call them overtly politically motivated and not to call them illegal.
Incidentally, I am a registered Republican and I am incensed that Bush and Gonzales call themselves Republicans.
Nope.
But I would feel a little more secure if I had a Linux machine with LUKS random autogenerated one-time-pad encrypted
sudo truecrypt
I just wish I could find a livecd that has truecrypt and vmware player installed...
I think you mean Meddling kids.
Not my kids. Their skulls are incredibly thick and I haven't noticed them absorb anything directed at them.
Unfortunately, Symantec has decided to dedicate all of its development resources into antipiracy technology and its core products have declined. System Mechanic is what the Norton Utilities should be. There are many better antivirus products available, some of which are free to home users.
Symantec has decided to squeeze every penny out of a flagging product line and people are jumping ship in droves. All of my clients have completely abandoned Norton. Who wants to pay essentially full price every year just for updates?
If this is your idea of a good system, I would love to see what you consider a bad one.
Literally... You are wrong. Literally...
It means to destroy a tenth, not leave a tenth or to destroy a great number or proportion of
decimate
-verb (used with object), -mated, -mating.
1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3. Obsolete. to take a tenth of or from.
[Origin: 1590-1600; L decimtus, ptp. of decimre to punish every tenth man chosen by lot, v. deriv. of decimus tenth, deriv. of decem ten; see ate1]
WRONG!!! First of all, they lost a case for publishing news summaries from online newpapers, not small pictures. Second, Google the company, was creating the summaries, not independent users. Third, it was in BELGIUM, not the US. Fourth, Belgian law may not provide for common carrier exemptions like US law does, not that it would even apply for that particular case anyway, which was about fair use.
You have been drinking the RIAA kool-aid for too long. You are confusing legal issues. Your rabid reaction to a not so cut-and-dried case demonstrate you clearly have no understanding of what exactly copyright is. Next time, leave the thoughtful commentary to your betters.
How about you do what I do? I actually monitor what my kids surf. I monitor proxy logs and history files. I watch over their shoulders. They never know when dad is silently connected with VNC watching their every move. I also have the machine password protected (which changes regularly). The have to ask permission to surf the net and have me log them in. It has worked out remarkably well. They get their school assignements done and still get to surf recreationally. They have been honest and never lost computer privileges.
It sounds to me that you want somebody else to do your job raising your kids for you. You expect your "content blocker" to do the work and when it invariably fails, everybody else can "segregate" the content for you so you don't have to actually monitor your kids yourself. You wouldn't (I hope) drop your kids off alone in front of a porn shop and expect others to keep them out of trouble, "meatspace constraints" notwithstanding.
A misguided bill like this might (if it actually passed Constitutional muster) make it more difficult to find porn, like your content filter, but a curious and resourceful child will find it anyway. Besides, Utah will never be able to force their plan on the rest of the world and the Internet is a world media. If you want a foolproof method to protect your child from the wicked Internet, sell your computer and unsubscribe from your ISP.
I'm glad somebody finally said it. I know I've been thinking it...
I guess I wasn't real clear about that. In a good coverage area it rings four times before voicemail. In a poor coverage area it rings maybe twice, maybe once, maybe four times, maybe none. The calling party hears four rings. My RAZR, on the other hand, works perfectly in the same area. Her Nokia is a very unreliable phone.
I guess my whole point is that the hardware is as important as the carrier. A good carrier with a crappy phone is useless.
My wife and I have Cingular. I paid $100 (with $100 rebate after 60 days) for a quad-band Motorola RAZR and she opted to get the free up front dual-band Nokia 6030. My phone is crystal clear and I have never seen less than three bars. It always rings. I have superb coverage.
My wife's phone sucks ass. It may only ring once or twice before going to voice mail. In low coverage areas, it sounds like she is walking outside during a windstorm. In areas where I have good reception, her phone drops calls and may have no service at all. In some places I have three bars and she has none.
I learned my lesson about the "free" phones when I got stuck paying for two years of lousy service with a piece of junk LG phone from Verizon. It worked about as well as my wife's Nokia. Before I signed up again for two years of monthly payments, I did a little digging on the net on cell phone reception and reliability.
The subtleties of the English language... "Phones must be chargable through USB" does not preclude another charging method. Since the summary did not say that phones "must use only USB for charging," the summary is essentially correct. A quick glance at the reference article at "The People's Daily Online" verifies that this is the intent of the new "rule". (And it is described as a rule in the article at Techdirt, but is described as a standard in The Peoples Daily Online.)
A better analogy would be the other place was serving food made with the same recipe as the restaurant. Oh... But recipes are not copyrightable. Tough luck.
If a musician enters into a contract with a record company, the record company should be held to the terms of the contract. God knows the musician will. If the contract is unfair and one sided (as they generally are) the musician has nobody to blame but himself. Record companies count on the greed factor to cloud the judgment of most record contract signees. They always bank on the belief that they will be the next Britney Spears. When you make a deal with the devil, expect to get burned.
Copyright is horribly broken. Nobody can argue with a straight face that 95 year copyrights encourage the useful arts. Horribly one-sided and draconian laws have bred contempt for the entire idea of copyright. Apologists for greedy media companies have nobody to blame but themselves for their current predicament. When millions of people every day willingly face lawsuits to share music with each other, the record companies need to sit up and take notice. They are obviously doing something very wrong.
Yes, I expect to be paid for any time on the job because I am a legally contracted employee. Now... Do you think that the "someplace else" giving away free food should be construed as somehow illegal or immoral? FISH pantries and soup kitchens do this all the time.
Great analogy...
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Zapp Brannigan: Star date: April 13th... point two.
I will not vote Republican again until there is atonement for:
I did not support the invasion of Iraq before it occured; I thought it was foolish. I did however, support the invasion of Afghanistan. Now we have a bellicose Iran to deal with as well as an unrepentant and bellicose North Korea. We are in deep shit.
They are grateful to the Firefox team for doing all their R&D for them.
Every time I take my kids to the movies I always make it a point to embarrass them about the cost. My son always begs me, "Please dad, not this time...", but I always do it anyway.
When they give me the bill, I always say, "But I didn't want to buy it. I only wanted to watch it."
Uh huh... And just suppose that your machine was compromised and all your passwords were stolen. If the thief posted online that you had a pirate copy of all of Adobe's software, would you still be so quick to meet out punishment for confessions?
And in spite of that, you are aware that the RIAA prosecutes individuals that offer copyrighted songs for download, not those that download for themselves. I can download every song in the catalog and if I disallow uploads, the RIAA totally ignores me.
The whole point of the decision is that reliable physical evidence is necessary for a conviction.