Now *that's* impressive. The closest approximation I've heard to the audio captchas I've encountered would be the few recordings I've heard that John Lennon used to give out as gifts: he'd record multiple radios playing different stations.
I did once get an audio captcha that was almost solvable -- AFAICT, it was a conversation between C'thullu in his native tongue and Tom Waits responding in Aramaic, recorded in a crowded airport terminal that had lots of loudspeaker announcements.
Wow, what a great comment. There's a technical answer to your question, but I think you might actually have hit upon a useful litigation or at least lobbying strategy. There are two aspects to the answer: (1) Only works produced by US employees or officers fall into the public domain exception; works produced by contractors are not. (2) There's statutory distinction between between "computer program" and "work of the United States government."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result . . . . A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that personâ(TM)s official duties.
Interestingly, note that in those definitions, the actual term "work" itself is not delineated, only different types of works: audiovisual works, collective works, derivative work, joint works, literary works, etc.
While there's judicial precedent for considering a computer program as a type of literary work (
"Thus a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a âoeliterary workâ
...it did so in a specific context:
"...and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version."
(Apple v. Franklin, http://digital-law-online.info/cases/219PQ113.htm) I think you might have hit upon not just a technical loophole but one that points to informed underlying public policy -- source code for things like voting machines, for example, should be open. Technically that's a matter of state, not federal, copyright since states run elections, but the public policy concern is the same.
Still, for TFA's category of software --internal accounting-- there are obvious conflicts to business interests: contractors would probably find such requirements detrimental to their business models. I believe that there's also a perceived security risk that outweighs any long-term security benefit. I imagine that most bureaucrats would think of opening the source in this kind of scenario as something akin to releasing the architectural plans for a federal building -- it would just make it easier for a malicious party to attack said program/building. It's that last concern --because it's actually a sincere one in most cases, and based on the reality that there are malicious parties who would like to attack such programs for any number of reasons and have already done so-- that I believe would probably be the biggest obstacle to getting the fed to move to open source.
I appreciate the recommendation, but the few times when I do wear headphones, if I'm in any type of public or semi-public setting I actually prefer not to block out background noise. And I find that blocking noise out with more noise usually doesn't work for me.
Several years ago I did head to my local audiologist and kick down ~$50 for a set of custom-molded earplugs. They're very effective at noise cancellation, though it is a different approach. It's probably not for everyone, but I got them because I was playing live, loud music gigs.
It might be due to years of music training, but I find there's really never such a thing as "background music" in my world. Just about any music within hearing range will grab my conscious attention, regardless of how I feel about the music. It's like I can't really stop myself from paying attention to the music. If I'm trying to do something non-music related, music is probably not going to help. One of the worst things is when music on hold -- it just drains my life away as I sit there, hearing the crappy, saccharine cookie-cutter material cheap enough to be licensed for things like hold banks, while my momentum and attention grind to a complete halt.
...if you're working on something that requires you to listen to what's coming through the headphones. Examples: an audio recording of the contract or document you're reviewing, learning a foreign language, learning a new song if you're lucky enough to be employed as a musician, audio feed for a virtual meeting, etc.
But yeah, "background music", either via speaker or headphone, is otherwise usually about as conducive to productivity as leaving a television on within visual range. I think the reasons that we keep answering those surveys otherwise, is really that on at least a subconscious level we want to be paid for listening to music we like. While increasing productivity is usually beneficial to the company's bottom line, often things that decrease productivity make one's office a much more enjoyable place to be.
Here's what her behavior is most likely in violation of:
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
I'm sure it will get a lot of chuckles, but practicing lawyers cannot simply make things up, threaten people with actions they know (or at least that a competent attorney would know) are devoid of merit, or knowingly make a false claim. Such as "You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because..."
It's the kind of weasel hedge you'd expect from a crank, but one a Bar disciplinary committee could see through in a second. Because while technically she could sue (technically you can bring suit for just about anything), as an attorney she knows perfectly well that she cannot file frivolous claims and expect to escape sanction.
Your attitude is not outrageous, it's just annoying and condescending. Often parents think they've suddenly become enlightened with selflessness because they suddenly have little to no free time. However, what they're really experiencing is a type vicarious selfishness; they're being selfish for their children. Sure you might have knocked yourself knocked out of the center of the universe, but you've replaced that center with something that will insure your genetic survival. You'll do anything for your kids, right? Many will go so far as to actively harm others to gain advantages for their kids.
At the extreme would be parents who actually kill the perceived rivals of their children (see murderer cheerleader mom, or the mom who faked a MySpace boyfriend to the point that her daughter's "competition" committed suicide.) At the mundane are the obnoxious parents who lobby their teachers to give their precious genetic survival some exception to the rules. Are those kinds of behaviors "adult"? Nope, those behaviors are the same kinds of rivalries you see played out in young children.
If you ever want to actually learn what selflessness actually means, spend your days being of service to those whose survival will not propagate your own genes. Until you're willing to treat every person you encounter with the same levels of deference, empathy, and concern that you treat your children, do not continue to think that your willingness to take a bullet for your kid means you've found wisdom or perspective.
Thanks, glad to hear I wasn't being trolled. Sorry if I got snippy, it all started with your initial, ah, 'correction'.
Just to fully clear things up, while your gay mafia comment seemed to imply otherwise, you should know that I would commend you or anyone else for that matter who has worked with the HRC for their efforts. In an earlier job, I had a bit part that served as tangential support for In re: Marriage Cases, feel lucky to have had the chance to do such work, and proud to see the evolution of public perception on the issue, even in just the four years since.
Prior to iTunes and other legal methods of downloading music, there was only one way buy music -- you went to a store and bought an album.
Don't you remember Columbia House's successful mail-order business? 12 albums for 1 cent!** (**plus you have to buy 10 more albums at ~$10-$15 a pop.) No store overhead, no need to walk further than the mailbox.
Most musicians made their living from live performance for all but 60 years or so of human history.
Actually, before audio recording, copyright from *printed sheet music* could be lucrative for big names. There are million-unit sales figures for sheet music of songs from the 1800s. I believe that many of the bigger classical composers got the most money for their music from the private commissioning of compositions by wealthy patrons.
In order to make money you need to be significantly better than the laymen that do it for free for their own enjoyment.
I disagree. There are many artists that make money that are less talented then artist who are not making money. I would say that it is more about who you know then what you know. Sure, you have to have enough talent to perform, but talent will only take you so far. You have to have the right connections to get to the point that you start making real money.
I think you might be overlooking the distinction between musical talent and music business talent. The business skills necessary to be financially successful as a musician are pretty much the same skill set you'll find in any well-paid CEO: sociopathic, narcissistic, devoid of empathy, continuous self-promotion, etc. OTOH, musical talent also requires some soul, and often a deep sense of empathy, insight, and compassion. Since people naturally talented with those kinds of business skills are often hollow, soulless parasites, it's natural that the best-paid musicians will only have the minimum musical talent required... and only as long as it's needed for them to establish their brand. Conversely, those with a modicum of selflessness will usually self-select out of a game that requires profiting at the expense of others' losses.
The rare exception these days is the celebrity-level musician who is not simply someone with the mindset of your average greedy investment banker, with a different sense of fashion, and who is a bit more cavalier about using coke in semi-public.
Indeed. I'm surprised to see no elections-related charge; maybe those crimes are written so specifically that they don't apply to pre-election activities (such as recall petitions.)
OTOH, this will probably give the recall idea some new legs.
You said that the legislation comes from the perspective that it's worse to kill blacks than whites.... I am simply trying to disprove the mistaken line of thought that liberals and/or gays think that it's worse to kill a black or gay person than a white person.
NO, I did not say this. Nor would I, because I do not agree with this. It's annoying that you continue to attribute this perspective to me, since I disagree with it. Someone else made that comment; I disagreed and responded to their statement. How can you possibly not understand this? Your disagreement on that point lies with someone else. Go find the person who actually believes that, and if you disagree, respond to them. You know, like I did in the first place.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Do you really not understand what this means? It means it's a worse crime if the reason for it is because of bigotry against a victim's race, gender, etc.This means that it's "worse" for someone to kill someone because they're black AND it's just as equally "worse" to kill someone because they're white. It would also be a hate crime if a gay person killed a straight person because they hated straight people. The point of hate crime law is that the criminal is motivated by bigotry. This does not mean only bigotry against minorities counts, nor does anything I've said mean that either. Now please, stop with this "omg you said it means blacks and gays are more important!" No I didn't, because I'm well aware that hate crime legislation doesn't do that at all. Someone else said and apparently thinks that, but not me. So ffs, enough!
I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally to annoy me, or if you really just don't understand that you're confusing someone else's opinion with mine. But as long as you continue to repeat this demonstrably false attribution, continuing to respond to you will just be a waste of my time.
And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites?
That's the grandparents poster's statement, not mine. My first response in this thread was to disagree with what you're paraphrasing, in fact. (Go ahead, check.) Either that, or you're just finding it easier to take issue with something you've simply made up whole cloth.
I'm guessing you're personally upset at at being called out on not having read *any* of the actual legal sources. You haven't said otherwise, and your position indicates this as well. You seem insulted that I've dared pointed out that you haven't read squat on a subject you tried to "correct" me on. If it is actually true that you haven't read any legislative material on it... do try to get over it, please.
As for the rest of your comment, I think the obvious piece you're failing to understand is that the legislative intent of any given law is intimately tied to the actual text of said enacted law. While there is a lot of non-legislative commentary on the community effects of hate crime, such as that from the ADL, you'll note that the term "legislative intent" of course requires a legislature.The ADL and other such secondary commentators are not legislatures... so whatever their positions are, they are not indicative of "legislative intent."
Your position would be analogous to claiming that the primary legislative intent for, say, criminal laws against stabbing someone with a knife, is to keep the community at large from becoming too uneasy. Well no, that's not *the* or even a main point, but anti-stabbing laws do have that effect as well.
While it's accurate to note that community effect is a beneficial side effect of hate crime law, the actual legislative work has focused on the prohibition of crimes (crimes against persons, not harm against communities) motivated by certain characteristics such as race, religion, sex, etc. Hate crime laws are usually amendments to or replace the more general civil rights acts that prohibit discrimination.The consistent legislative intent of hate crime law is to condone harmful bigotry, and enhance redress for such individuals who have been violently victimized because of such bigotry.
Yes you're talking about legislative intent, and I happen to research federal and state legislative intent professionally. There are any number of documents that can be used to determine legislative intent: congressional records, hearings, etc. The history on these laws dates back to the 1960s, at least.
Since you've avoided an easy, direct question twice now, it seems clear that you haven't even read of the actual hate crime legislation and just aren't comfortable copping to this.
So from what writings, exactly, did you arrive at your opinion as to the legislative intent here? Because it also seems like you haven't read any of the material pertaining to the legislative intent, either. So if you haven't read the law, and if you haven't read the legislative history that indicates legislative intent... well it leaves me puzzled as to why you would claim to know what the legislative intent is, here.
I'll be happy if you can show me otherwise, but I simply don't think your opinion on this matter is an informed one.
"Intimacy rooms", included as part of student housing? This seems like a ridiculous idea to me.
They already have "intimacy rooms" for college students, and have had even since the even more puritanical days of centuries past. It is called "being able to afford to pay for your own fucking housing". Aka "get an apartment", aka "your parents do not want to have to pay for your own personal fuck chamber."
I'll ask again. Have you actually read any of the specific laws -- that is text of any actual hate crime legislation? Or since you bring it up, have you read any of the actual legislative history of any federal or state hate crime laws? From your comments so far, it does not seem like you have.
Close... it's not when someone wants to hurt/kill another because of such things, "bias intimidation" laws are supposed to be when someone wants to hurt/kill multiple people beyond the original crime. For example, burning cross is only in one victim(s) yards, but is mean to hurt/kill people in the neighborhood.
No, you're not correct. Have you ever read any of the actual hate crime legislation? There are multiple state laws, and overlapping federal ones. All provide for punitive enhancements for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." None of them include your 'hurts multiple people' aspect as an actual part of the language. While it's probably accurate to say that such is one of the intentions behind the law, it's not the actual law.
Forcing students to give up their privacy for years seems... 3rd worldish. Or was this done specifically to make sure there's no privacy and thus no sex amongst students? Does anyone need insight in how stupid that would be?
That college students commonly share bedroom space seems more a reflection of financial realities than any conscious approach to depriving anyone of their privacy.
I just think it is simply something rooted in both pragmatism and tradition. Pragmatism, because it's simply cheaper to house people as roommates. Traditionally, because in the US shared bedrooms has always been very common for financially dependent children. It's not even unusual for adults to have apartment roommates; having separate bedrooms seems to me like it's really just a matter of one's income, or lack thereof.
The scam is you will get some bullshit answer and no matter what you will not change their opinion.
This common sentiment is frustrating to hear. It always comes from people who seem to expect fast, precise responses from lumbering institutions and bureaucracies that necessarily move at a far slower pace.
Nothing big gets changed quickly. You'll never sign the one petition that finally sends things over the top, and hell while we're at it, sure your single vote doesn't really matter all that much, in the grand scheme.
Big change takes time, years, sometimes decades or even generations. Several Congresses will hold hearings, and publish reports that you and most everyone else (including those who "report" on it) will never read, material posted in the Congressional Journals or the Federal Register.
Major change requires the continuous input from multiple voices. It requires above all else persistence. If you expect that you will be able to change a federal law as easily as you can post on/., then yes you will be disappointed. That is not the useful purpose of these petitions. The purpose is to continue to increase the visibility of this issue.
Pot's been illegal for a long time. However, in the past decades we have made huge, dramatic legal changes in terms of medical marijuana. Things are changing pretty dramatically -- legal in 17 states now, a number of cities have deprioritized its enforcement, and it's getting increasingly staid and conservative people to endorse it. Only because the issue has become this visible in fact, can now even a New York Supreme Court Judge (somewhat) comfortably admit publicly to his own medical marijuana use.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-judge-marijuana-idUSBRE84G1GX20120517
Even still, it is going to take a lot more petitioning brush-offs to get there -- including ongoing efforts to petition, where the short term result effort seems to fall flat. These things do add up over time, they have been. The result you want to aim for isn't an immediate response (as great as that would be), rather it is to keep the discussion as prominent as possible.
The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off. You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it. What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime. A murder is a murder: why should the white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) get a harsher penalty than a white person killing another white? They both did the same damned thing.
What one thinks/feels while doing it is a critical element of almost every crime, and certainly of all violent ones. It's not "thoughtcrime", the concept is called mens rea.
Briefly and simplified: killing a person is homicide. Murder is a homicide that you intended to do before it happened, then carried through with your plan. Manslaughter is a homicide in which you killed someone but weren't doing so out of some preconceived plan. While in both cases someone was killed, the difference between them is what the killer was thinking.
If you stab someone in the arm because you're fighting them, you've committed at least a battery -- because of your state of mind. If you stab someone in the arm because you're cooking and the knife slipped from your hand, you haven't committed any violent crime at all -- because you weren't intending to cause harm.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
We routinely run genetic tests, all the way up to whole exomes, on tumour and normal samples from a collection donated by thousands of different patients (anonymous to us). Most ot the people curently working in our lab (not to mention collaborators in other labs) had not even joined when the bulk of the samples were collected. It would be completely impractical to seek fresh consent from every relevant patient whenever a new researcher needed to run a test or access a piece of data. It would be a tragic waste to destroy data and precious samples prematurely (and usually against the wishes of the donors, who typically want us to do all we can with the material).
Would a grandfather clause that allowed for the testing of already-collected samples, and require the consent form for all future samples, address your concern?
Samsung announced it had completed development of its first 4Gb DDR4 DRAM module in January of 2011, and started shipping 2Gb DDR4 samples in December of 2010; Hynix demoed its own DDR4 technology in February of 2011.
I don't know where this idea that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive comes from. They're the cheapest way of getting food, as long as you have time to cook (and 10-20 minutes a day is enough for that if you don't do anything too complicated).
10-20 minutes per day for simple food prep isn't accurate, especially if you don't have a dishwasher. I'll give grandparent 10-20 minutes per meal, which comes out to 30-60 minutes per day.
There's a related term to parent's point, "food desert" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert One of the articles referenced discusses a study that observed drops in obesity rates in food deserts after a supermarket was built in the area.
A lot of people live in areas where an hour's round trip travel will at best get you to a 7-11 or a Walgreens. While in my region I've noticed that some 7-11s have started to sell fruit, it's marked up so much that it's really not cheaper than fast food -- $5 for a 12oz cup of sliced melon, $1 per apple or banana. And at those prices, the dollar menu at a fast food counter really is cheaper in terms of both time and money.
Slashdot Mirror
Now *that's* impressive. The closest approximation I've heard to the audio captchas I've encountered would be the few recordings I've heard that John Lennon used to give out as gifts: he'd record multiple radios playing different stations.
I did once get an audio captcha that was almost solvable -- AFAICT, it was a conversation between C'thullu in his native tongue and Tom Waits responding in Aramaic, recorded in a crowded airport terminal that had lots of loudspeaker announcements.
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result . . . .
A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that personâ(TM)s official duties.
Interestingly, note that in those definitions, the actual term "work" itself is not delineated, only different types of works: audiovisual works, collective works, derivative work, joint works, literary works, etc.
While there's judicial precedent for considering a computer program as a type of literary work (
"Thus a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a âoeliterary workâ
"...and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version."
(Apple v. Franklin, http://digital-law-online.info/cases/219PQ113.htm) I think you might have hit upon not just a technical loophole but one that points to informed underlying public policy -- source code for things like voting machines, for example, should be open. Technically that's a matter of state, not federal, copyright since states run elections, but the public policy concern is the same.
Still, for TFA's category of software --internal accounting-- there are obvious conflicts to business interests: contractors would probably find such requirements detrimental to their business models. I believe that there's also a perceived security risk that outweighs any long-term security benefit. I imagine that most bureaucrats would think of opening the source in this kind of scenario as something akin to releasing the architectural plans for a federal building -- it would just make it easier for a malicious party to attack said program/building. It's that last concern --because it's actually a sincere one in most cases, and based on the reality that there are malicious parties who would like to attack such programs for any number of reasons and have already done so-- that I believe would probably be the biggest obstacle to getting the fed to move to open source.
I appreciate the recommendation, but the few times when I do wear headphones, if I'm in any type of public or semi-public setting I actually prefer not to block out background noise. And I find that blocking noise out with more noise usually doesn't work for me.
Several years ago I did head to my local audiologist and kick down ~$50 for a set of custom-molded earplugs. They're very effective at noise cancellation, though it is a different approach. It's probably not for everyone, but I got them because I was playing live, loud music gigs.
It might be due to years of music training, but I find there's really never such a thing as "background music" in my world. Just about any music within hearing range will grab my conscious attention, regardless of how I feel about the music. It's like I can't really stop myself from paying attention to the music. If I'm trying to do something non-music related, music is probably not going to help. One of the worst things is when music on hold -- it just drains my life away as I sit there, hearing the crappy, saccharine cookie-cutter material cheap enough to be licensed for things like hold banks, while my momentum and attention grind to a complete halt.
...if you're working on something that requires you to listen to what's coming through the headphones. Examples: an audio recording of the contract or document you're reviewing, learning a foreign language, learning a new song if you're lucky enough to be employed as a musician, audio feed for a virtual meeting, etc.
But yeah, "background music", either via speaker or headphone, is otherwise usually about as conducive to productivity as leaving a television on within visual range. I think the reasons that we keep answering those surveys otherwise, is really that on at least a subconscious level we want to be paid for listening to music we like. While increasing productivity is usually beneficial to the company's bottom line, often things that decrease productivity make one's office a much more enjoyable place to be.
Yes, tyvm. This: http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
While her nonprofit work might be commendable, what this woman is doing is abusing the power she has as an attorney. It's possible she's also violating Rules 3.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions.html, 4.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others.html, and/or others.
I'm sure it will get a lot of chuckles, but practicing lawyers cannot simply make things up, threaten people with actions they know (or at least that a competent attorney would know) are devoid of merit, or knowingly make a false claim. Such as "You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because..."
It's the kind of weasel hedge you'd expect from a crank, but one a Bar disciplinary committee could see through in a second. Because while technically she could sue (technically you can bring suit for just about anything), as an attorney she knows perfectly well that she cannot file frivolous claims and expect to escape sanction.
She needs to be checked, hard.
Er... no. Yes money will attract a lot of women, but plenty of poor men get by just fine. I give you one example of a poor man who is able to find multiple sexual partners: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/tennessee-baby-machine-is-state-inmate-758094
For more real-life examples, head over to an impoverished section of your nearest city. Note all the poor people, and all the children.
Your attitude is not outrageous, it's just annoying and condescending. Often parents think they've suddenly become enlightened with selflessness because they suddenly have little to no free time. However, what they're really experiencing is a type vicarious selfishness; they're being selfish for their children. Sure you might have knocked yourself knocked out of the center of the universe, but you've replaced that center with something that will insure your genetic survival. You'll do anything for your kids, right? Many will go so far as to actively harm others to gain advantages for their kids.
At the extreme would be parents who actually kill the perceived rivals of their children (see murderer cheerleader mom, or the mom who faked a MySpace boyfriend to the point that her daughter's "competition" committed suicide.) At the mundane are the obnoxious parents who lobby their teachers to give their precious genetic survival some exception to the rules. Are those kinds of behaviors "adult"? Nope, those behaviors are the same kinds of rivalries you see played out in young children.
If you ever want to actually learn what selflessness actually means, spend your days being of service to those whose survival will not propagate your own genes. Until you're willing to treat every person you encounter with the same levels of deference, empathy, and concern that you treat your children, do not continue to think that your willingness to take a bullet for your kid means you've found wisdom or perspective.
Thanks, glad to hear I wasn't being trolled. Sorry if I got snippy, it all started with your initial, ah, 'correction'.
Just to fully clear things up, while your gay mafia comment seemed to imply otherwise, you should know that I would commend you or anyone else for that matter who has worked with the HRC for their efforts. In an earlier job, I had a bit part that served as tangential support for In re: Marriage Cases, feel lucky to have had the chance to do such work, and proud to see the evolution of public perception on the issue, even in just the four years since.
Prior to iTunes and other legal methods of downloading music, there was only one way buy music -- you went to a store and bought an album.
Don't you remember Columbia House's successful mail-order business? 12 albums for 1 cent!** (**plus you have to buy 10 more albums at ~$10-$15 a pop.) No store overhead, no need to walk further than the mailbox.
Most musicians made their living from live performance for all but 60 years or so of human history.
Actually, before audio recording, copyright from *printed sheet music* could be lucrative for big names. There are million-unit sales figures for sheet music of songs from the 1800s. I believe that many of the bigger classical composers got the most money for their music from the private commissioning of compositions by wealthy patrons.
In order to make money you need to be significantly better than the laymen that do it for free for their own enjoyment.
I disagree. There are many artists that make money that are less talented then artist who are not making money. I would say that it is more about who you know then what you know. Sure, you have to have enough talent to perform, but talent will only take you so far. You have to have the right connections to get to the point that you start making real money.
I think you might be overlooking the distinction between musical talent and music business talent. The business skills necessary to be financially successful as a musician are pretty much the same skill set you'll find in any well-paid CEO: sociopathic, narcissistic, devoid of empathy, continuous self-promotion, etc. OTOH, musical talent also requires some soul, and often a deep sense of empathy, insight, and compassion. Since people naturally talented with those kinds of business skills are often hollow, soulless parasites, it's natural that the best-paid musicians will only have the minimum musical talent required... and only as long as it's needed for them to establish their brand. Conversely, those with a modicum of selflessness will usually self-select out of a game that requires profiting at the expense of others' losses.
The rare exception these days is the celebrity-level musician who is not simply someone with the mindset of your average greedy investment banker, with a different sense of fashion, and who is a bit more cavalier about using coke in semi-public.
Indeed. I'm surprised to see no elections-related charge; maybe those crimes are written so specifically that they don't apply to pre-election activities (such as recall petitions.)
OTOH, this will probably give the recall idea some new legs.
You said that the legislation comes from the perspective that it's worse to kill blacks than whites.... I am simply trying to disprove the mistaken line of thought that liberals and/or gays think that it's worse to kill a black or gay person than a white person.
NO, I did not say this. Nor would I, because I do not agree with this. It's annoying that you continue to attribute this perspective to me, since I disagree with it. Someone else made that comment; I disagreed and responded to their statement. How can you possibly not understand this? Your disagreement on that point lies with someone else. Go find the person who actually believes that, and if you disagree, respond to them. You know, like I did in the first place.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Do you really not understand what this means? It means it's a worse crime if the reason for it is because of bigotry against a victim's race, gender, etc.This means that it's "worse" for someone to kill someone because they're black AND it's just as equally "worse" to kill someone because they're white. It would also be a hate crime if a gay person killed a straight person because they hated straight people. The point of hate crime law is that the criminal is motivated by bigotry. This does not mean only bigotry against minorities counts, nor does anything I've said mean that either. Now please, stop with this "omg you said it means blacks and gays are more important!" No I didn't, because I'm well aware that hate crime legislation doesn't do that at all. Someone else said and apparently thinks that, but not me. So ffs, enough!
I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally to annoy me, or if you really just don't understand that you're confusing someone else's opinion with mine. But as long as you continue to repeat this demonstrably false attribution, continuing to respond to you will just be a waste of my time.
And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites?
That's the grandparents poster's statement, not mine. My first response in this thread was to disagree with what you're paraphrasing, in fact. (Go ahead, check.) Either that, or you're just finding it easier to take issue with something you've simply made up whole cloth.
I'm guessing you're personally upset at at being called out on not having read *any* of the actual legal sources. You haven't said otherwise, and your position indicates this as well. You seem insulted that I've dared pointed out that you haven't read squat on a subject you tried to "correct" me on. If it is actually true that you haven't read any legislative material on it... do try to get over it, please.
As for the rest of your comment, I think the obvious piece you're failing to understand is that the legislative intent of any given law is intimately tied to the actual text of said enacted law. While there is a lot of non-legislative commentary on the community effects of hate crime, such as that from the ADL, you'll note that the term "legislative intent" of course requires a legislature.The ADL and other such secondary commentators are not legislatures... so whatever their positions are, they are not indicative of "legislative intent."
Your position would be analogous to claiming that the primary legislative intent for, say, criminal laws against stabbing someone with a knife, is to keep the community at large from becoming too uneasy. Well no, that's not *the* or even a main point, but anti-stabbing laws do have that effect as well.
While it's accurate to note that community effect is a beneficial side effect of hate crime law, the actual legislative work has focused on the prohibition of crimes (crimes against persons, not harm against communities) motivated by certain characteristics such as race, religion, sex, etc. Hate crime laws are usually amendments to or replace the more general civil rights acts that prohibit discrimination.The consistent legislative intent of hate crime law is to condone harmful bigotry, and enhance redress for such individuals who have been violently victimized because of such bigotry.
Yes you're talking about legislative intent, and I happen to research federal and state legislative intent professionally. There are any number of documents that can be used to determine legislative intent: congressional records, hearings, etc. The history on these laws dates back to the 1960s, at least.
Since you've avoided an easy, direct question twice now, it seems clear that you haven't even read of the actual hate crime legislation and just aren't comfortable copping to this.
So from what writings, exactly, did you arrive at your opinion as to the legislative intent here? Because it also seems like you haven't read any of the material pertaining to the legislative intent, either. So if you haven't read the law, and if you haven't read the legislative history that indicates legislative intent... well it leaves me puzzled as to why you would claim to know what the legislative intent is, here.
I'll be happy if you can show me otherwise, but I simply don't think your opinion on this matter is an informed one.
"Intimacy rooms", included as part of student housing? This seems like a ridiculous idea to me.
They already have "intimacy rooms" for college students, and have had even since the even more puritanical days of centuries past. It is called "being able to afford to pay for your own fucking housing". Aka "get an apartment", aka "your parents do not want to have to pay for your own personal fuck chamber."
I'll ask again. Have you actually read any of the specific laws -- that is text of any actual hate crime legislation? Or since you bring it up, have you read any of the actual legislative history of any federal or state hate crime laws? From your comments so far, it does not seem like you have.
Close... it's not when someone wants to hurt/kill another because of such things, "bias intimidation" laws are supposed to be when someone wants to hurt/kill multiple people beyond the original crime. For example, burning cross is only in one victim(s) yards, but is mean to hurt/kill people in the neighborhood.
No, you're not correct. Have you ever read any of the actual hate crime legislation? There are multiple state laws, and overlapping federal ones. All provide for punitive enhancements for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." None of them include your 'hurts multiple people' aspect as an actual part of the language. While it's probably accurate to say that such is one of the intentions behind the law, it's not the actual law.
Forcing students to give up their privacy for years seems... 3rd worldish. Or was this done specifically to make sure there's no privacy and thus no sex amongst students? Does anyone need insight in how stupid that would be?
That college students commonly share bedroom space seems more a reflection of financial realities than any conscious approach to depriving anyone of their privacy.
I just think it is simply something rooted in both pragmatism and tradition. Pragmatism, because it's simply cheaper to house people as roommates. Traditionally, because in the US shared bedrooms has always been very common for financially dependent children. It's not even unusual for adults to have apartment roommates; having separate bedrooms seems to me like it's really just a matter of one's income, or lack thereof.
The scam is you will get some bullshit answer and no matter what you will not change their opinion.
This common sentiment is frustrating to hear. It always comes from people who seem to expect fast, precise responses from lumbering institutions and bureaucracies that necessarily move at a far slower pace.
/., then yes you will be disappointed. That is not the useful purpose of these petitions. The purpose is to continue to increase the visibility of this issue.
Nothing big gets changed quickly. You'll never sign the one petition that finally sends things over the top, and hell while we're at it, sure your single vote doesn't really matter all that much, in the grand scheme.
Big change takes time, years, sometimes decades or even generations. Several Congresses will hold hearings, and publish reports that you and most everyone else (including those who "report" on it) will never read, material posted in the Congressional Journals or the Federal Register.
Major change requires the continuous input from multiple voices. It requires above all else persistence. If you expect that you will be able to change a federal law as easily as you can post on
Pot's been illegal for a long time. However, in the past decades we have made huge, dramatic legal changes in terms of medical marijuana. Things are changing pretty dramatically -- legal in 17 states now, a number of cities have deprioritized its enforcement, and it's getting increasingly staid and conservative people to endorse it. Only because the issue has become this visible in fact, can now even a New York Supreme Court Judge (somewhat) comfortably admit publicly to his own medical marijuana use.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-judge-marijuana-idUSBRE84G1GX20120517
Even still, it is going to take a lot more petitioning brush-offs to get there -- including ongoing efforts to petition, where the short term result effort seems to fall flat. These things do add up over time, they have been. The result you want to aim for isn't an immediate response (as great as that would be), rather it is to keep the discussion as prominent as possible.
The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off. You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it. What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime. A murder is a murder: why should the white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) get a harsher penalty than a white person killing another white? They both did the same damned thing.
What one thinks/feels while doing it is a critical element of almost every crime, and certainly of all violent ones. It's not "thoughtcrime", the concept is called mens rea.
Briefly and simplified: killing a person is homicide. Murder is a homicide that you intended to do before it happened, then carried through with your plan. Manslaughter is a homicide in which you killed someone but weren't doing so out of some preconceived plan. While in both cases someone was killed, the difference between them is what the killer was thinking.
If you stab someone in the arm because you're fighting them, you've committed at least a battery -- because of your state of mind. If you stab someone in the arm because you're cooking and the knife slipped from your hand, you haven't committed any violent crime at all -- because you weren't intending to cause harm.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
We routinely run genetic tests, all the way up to whole exomes, on tumour and normal samples from a collection donated by thousands of different patients (anonymous to us). Most ot the people curently working in our lab (not to mention collaborators in other labs) had not even joined when the bulk of the samples were collected. It would be completely impractical to seek fresh consent from every relevant patient whenever a new researcher needed to run a test or access a piece of data. It would be a tragic waste to destroy data and precious samples prematurely (and usually against the wishes of the donors, who typically want us to do all we can with the material).
Would a grandfather clause that allowed for the testing of already-collected samples, and require the consent form for all future samples, address your concern?
Samsung announced it had completed development of its first 4Gb DDR4 DRAM module in January of 2011, and started shipping 2Gb DDR4 samples in December of 2010; Hynix demoed its own DDR4 technology in February of 2011.
I don't know where this idea that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive comes from. They're the cheapest way of getting food, as long as you have time to cook (and 10-20 minutes a day is enough for that if you don't do anything too complicated).
10-20 minutes per day for simple food prep isn't accurate, especially if you don't have a dishwasher. I'll give grandparent 10-20 minutes per meal, which comes out to 30-60 minutes per day.
There's a related term to parent's point, "food desert" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert One of the articles referenced discusses a study that observed drops in obesity rates in food deserts after a supermarket was built in the area.
A lot of people live in areas where an hour's round trip travel will at best get you to a 7-11 or a Walgreens. While in my region I've noticed that some 7-11s have started to sell fruit, it's marked up so much that it's really not cheaper than fast food -- $5 for a 12oz cup of sliced melon, $1 per apple or banana. And at those prices, the dollar menu at a fast food counter really is cheaper in terms of both time and money.