Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.
I've concluded that one of the primary goals of political parties is to circumvent the principle of checks and balances. If your party in congress takes its orders from the president then it might as well be the same branch, Same thing with the house vs the senate - if party members vote in lockstep then there is little point in having a bicameral legislature.
Lol. Seriously? You now want to play lawyer semantic games? You were perfectly happy to play fast and lose with the terminology up to this point - going off on now obviously unrelated tangents about not making laws for things that can't happen.
It was obvious from the context that we aren't in court and that everyone was speaking in general terms to begin with. You can have the technical win here, but you add no value to the conversation in doing so.
I suspect...... that standards vary between states.
No, not so much. Spend 30 second with google and you'll see that the 85 percentile is not only consistent across the US, its a general rule for most of the developed world.
So... you're blaming the person obeying the posted speed limit (maximum legal speed) for the actions of the person who is not? I'm curious to see your justification.
I'm not blaming anyone. No point in being right if you are dead.
Keeping your speed to the legal limit, while putting you personally at greater risk, encourages others to reduce their speed.
It isn't about your personal risk, its about the risk to all of the other cars around you. One guy hits the slowpoke and the chain reaction can easily take out 10 cars.
The excessive speed itself is dangerous, and matching that speed encourages those around you to do the same.
Not the case. DoT standards for setting speed limits, in a nutshell, are to use the 85th percentile of what unregulated drivers average on the roadway. This process works because people rarely drive faster than is dangerous regardless (and/or in spite) of posted speed limits.
The analogy is appropriate, in spite of whatever justifications you like to make for your illegal speeding habits.
Ah, thanks for that. It is so much easier when the self-righteous dickwads identify themselves by projecting because we can all tell that they are the ones doing the rationalizing rather than arguing in good faith. FYI, I rarely, if ever, speed. I live in a city and don't own a car. When I do rent one on travel I avoid freeways as much as is feasible.
just like I'm wrong when I speed even though I justify it by saying that everyone else is doing it.
You should get a better analogy. Exceeding the speed limit because everyone else is also speeding is right in the one objective sense that matters - reduction of harm. It is pretty well understood that speed differentials between cars on the same road are a significant road hazard, even when in different lanes like fast moving HOVs beside slow-moving regular lanes. So while speeding because others are speeding is unlawful (in most, but not all US states) it is generally the right thing to do.
The case was civil law not criminal. The criminal areas of copyright law are in any case almost never used so it's the civil stuff (which applies to all persons natural or otherwise) that matters
Thjat's a meaningless and arbitrary distinction when claiming that copyright law was meant to target private individuals at least as much as businesses. Just because some laws targeted everybody doesn't make the emphasis on for profit piracy any less.
Uh, yeah. Copyright historically has been a civil matter even for commercial infringement (and by all rights it still should be, but that's neither here nor there). That is in no way conflicting with what I said.
Of course it doesn't conflict with what you said, you weaselled by saying it only applies to copyright acts you have read. Apparently you haven't read the copyright act of 1897 which made infringement a criminal act for the first time, but only when done "for profit." Nor, apparently, any of the follow-up acts since then.
I'm not ignorant; you're an asshat.
I am an asshat but that doesn't make you any less ignorant.
You failed to mention how much that service costs. The freetards around Slashdot badly need a dose of reality. Business class 20Mb DSL from Qwest is a couple hundred a month.
Business class 50Mbps/20Mbps from verizon is roughly $150/month. Add on a few more dollars if you want a static IP.
Technically, if everyone in your neighborhood signed up for the very fastest service (50Mbps or higher download), then there would be some contention.
If everyone signed up for that top-tier verizon would be rolling in enough dough that they could afford to upgrade capacity. Verizon's fios pricing is actually more expensive on a per bps basis for the highest tier than it is for the lower tiers.
Actually, they were written to go after anybody that violated them, and whack them with draconian penalties to make up for the low probability of whacking any particular mole.
That's how they are written now. But today's laws are the result of massive lobbying and don't reflect the original design. As I've pointed out else where in this thread, it was only in 1997 with the passage of the No-Electronic Theft Act that non-commercial infringement (i.e. trading copies for other copies) was made a criminal offense.
In fact every copyright act I've read is explicitly not merely a regulation on business, as they specifically assign liability for infringement even if it isn't commercial in nature.
In this case I'd say the guys who were there for the creation of the web and those who weren't.
Look you can quibble about the use of the word generation, but there is absolutely no disputing the fact that graceful degradation was a core principle of the design of HTML.
Rather than old man syndrome, I'd say its a case of eternal september. There are just so many more web-devs now than there used to be that there is plenty of room for ignorance to flourish.
That sentence stub made my brain incredibly deliberately fall out of my ears.
Think of it as not fixing a bug or problem that is in the corp's favor. Like having really complicated cell phone bills which frequently contain errors in the phone company's favor. I believe sprint eventually got busted for doing just that in the early 2000s - they got away with it for at least half a decade because the bills were so byzantine that the number of people who actually noticed and bitched cost less than all the extra revenue from the suckers who just paid. On the other hand, some of us just quit sprint and went with another company instead...
It would be interesting to try a completely bogus made up browser (and perhaps a null browser, no user-agent at all) with a plugin like user-agent switcher and see what that yields.
The Great Firewall of China is not foolproof - in fact, there were numerous demonstrations of how easy it is to work around it - but it does strangle the flow of information sufficiently that the majority of people in the country do not have the unbiased facts. So the goal of those running it is still achieved. This case is not fundamentally any different - censorship does work, even when it's not perfect.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the goal of the censorship in each case. China's goal is to maintain widespread ignorance. Censorship of extremist videos is intended to stop radicalization of the very small number of people who are susceptible to it due to their personal circumstances. Those most likely to be radicalized are the very same who are most likely to hunt down the videos on obscure extremist websites where there is absolutely no debate.
So just as China's firewall does not stop 'extremist' dissidents from getting at the censored information nor will this censorship stop the radicalization of people who are prone to it in the first place.
Given that this is the Internet, the comment section for a popular and controversial video is likely to consist of thousands of comments which no sane person is going to read - at best they'll look at the last 2-3 pages, and at the comments which are stickied due to being upmodded.
No sane person is going to be radicalized by watching videos like these either. With youtube at least there is opportunity for good speech to be right there next to the bad speech. Especially with the related videos section in the column on the right of the page.
That's my whole point. At any given time, any design principle of the web has been violated over. All my examples show graceful degradation that was ignored. That you think the "current generation" is any worse than previous generous generations is just Old Man Syndrome.
When there really has been only two generations, I can't agree.
If you call my company and say you're not happy with our work, we come back out and make it right.
Your company is not all companies. My experience is that the regular drones are just as likely to not give a damn, or even worse feel that they are protecting their company's interests by minimising the response to a customer problem.
I think to get the creepiness quotient expressed properly, 'service' should be in special quotes there.
This stuff is nothing new. I think its repugnant that a customer needs to make a public sqwak in order to get good service (and thus have your complaining be a permanent public record for data-mining corps). But, on the other hand, at least customers are now better enabled to sqwak in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I know some politicians will use a study like this to argue that single payer health care is a bad idea,
Clearly these deaths are due to the NHS death panels!
The idea is that the people weren't specifically breeding the fish in the same way that people specifically bred cows and wheat and whatnot.
So, you are saying that instead of selective breeding, this was indiscriminate breeding...
Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.
I've concluded that one of the primary goals of political parties is to circumvent the principle of checks and balances. If your party in congress takes its orders from the president then it might as well be the same branch, Same thing with the house vs the senate - if party members vote in lockstep then there is little point in having a bicameral legislature.
Liability is a civil term.
Lol. Seriously? You now want to play lawyer semantic games?
You were perfectly happy to play fast and lose with the terminology up to this point - going off on now obviously unrelated tangents about not making laws for things that can't happen.
It was obvious from the context that we aren't in court and that everyone was speaking in general terms to begin with. You can have the technical win here, but you add no value to the conversation in doing so.
I suspect... ... that standards vary between states.
No, not so much. Spend 30 second with google and you'll see that the 85 percentile is not only consistent across the US, its a general rule for most of the developed world.
So... you're blaming the person obeying the posted speed limit (maximum legal speed) for the actions of the person who is not? I'm curious to see your justification.
I'm not blaming anyone. No point in being right if you are dead.
Keeping your speed to the legal limit, while putting you personally at greater risk, encourages others to reduce their speed.
It isn't about your personal risk, its about the risk to all of the other cars around you. One guy hits the slowpoke and the chain reaction can easily take out 10 cars.
The excessive speed itself is dangerous, and matching that speed encourages those around you to do the same.
Not the case. DoT standards for setting speed limits, in a nutshell, are to use the 85th percentile of what unregulated drivers average on the roadway. This process works because people rarely drive faster than is dangerous regardless (and/or in spite) of posted speed limits.
The analogy is appropriate, in spite of whatever justifications you like to make for your illegal speeding habits.
Ah, thanks for that. It is so much easier when the self-righteous dickwads identify themselves by projecting because we can all tell that they are the ones doing the rationalizing rather than arguing in good faith. FYI, I rarely, if ever, speed. I live in a city and don't own a car. When I do rent one on travel I avoid freeways as much as is feasible.
So... you have now contradicted the original post you were supporting.
You know, the one that said, "they specifically assign liability for infringement even if it isn't commercial in nature."
I think we are done here.
Here's the thing - there is no point in making laws for things that can't or don't happen. In 1897 there was no 'non-commercial' infringement.
Sooooo... Why did they add the extra words to the bill to narrow the scope then?
just like I'm wrong when I speed even though I justify it by saying that everyone else is doing it.
You should get a better analogy. Exceeding the speed limit because everyone else is also speeding is right in the one objective sense that matters - reduction of harm. It is pretty well understood that speed differentials between cars on the same road are a significant road hazard, even when in different lanes like fast moving HOVs beside slow-moving regular lanes. So while speeding because others are speeding is unlawful (in most, but not all US states) it is generally the right thing to do.
The case was civil law not criminal. The criminal areas of copyright law are in any case almost never used so it's the civil stuff (which applies to all persons natural or otherwise) that matters
Thjat's a meaningless and arbitrary distinction when claiming that copyright law was meant to target private individuals at least as much as businesses. Just because some laws targeted everybody doesn't make the emphasis on for profit piracy any less.
Uh, yeah. Copyright historically has been a civil matter even for commercial infringement (and by all rights it still should be, but that's neither here nor there). That is in no way conflicting with what I said.
Of course it doesn't conflict with what you said, you weaselled by saying it only applies to copyright acts you have read. Apparently you haven't read the copyright act of 1897 which made infringement a criminal act for the first time, but only when done "for profit." Nor, apparently, any of the follow-up acts since then.
I'm not ignorant; you're an asshat.
I am an asshat but that doesn't make you any less ignorant.
You failed to mention how much that service costs. The freetards around Slashdot badly need a dose of reality. Business class 20Mb DSL from Qwest is a couple hundred a month.
Business class 50Mbps/20Mbps from verizon is roughly $150/month.
Add on a few more dollars if you want a static IP.
Technically, if everyone in your neighborhood signed up for the very fastest service (50Mbps or higher download), then there would be some contention.
If everyone signed up for that top-tier verizon would be rolling in enough dough that they could afford to upgrade capacity. Verizon's fios pricing is actually more expensive on a per bps basis for the highest tier than it is for the lower tiers.
Actually, they were written to go after anybody that violated them, and whack them with draconian penalties to make up for the low probability of whacking any particular mole.
That's how they are written now. But today's laws are the result of massive lobbying and don't reflect the original design.
As I've pointed out else where in this thread, it was only in 1997 with the passage of the No-Electronic Theft Act that non-commercial infringement (i.e. trading copies for other copies) was made a criminal offense.
In fact every copyright act I've read is explicitly not merely a regulation on business, as they specifically assign liability for infringement even if it isn't commercial in nature.
You are ignorant then. It was only in 1997 that non-commercial infringement became a criminal offense.
In this case I'd say the guys who were there for the creation of the web and those who weren't.
Look you can quibble about the use of the word generation, but there is absolutely no disputing the fact that graceful degradation was a core principle of the design of HTML.
Rather than old man syndrome, I'd say its a case of eternal september. There are just so many more web-devs now than there used to be that there is plenty of room for ignorance to flourish.
I mean, haven't you told a racist joke before? You just read one, after all.
That wasn't a racist joke.
It was a political joke referring to the junta's restrictions on internet use by the country's population.
Lol that's mean.
Or incredibly deliberate bad coding.
That sentence stub made my brain incredibly deliberately fall out of my ears.
Think of it as not fixing a bug or problem that is in the corp's favor. Like having really complicated cell phone bills which frequently contain errors in the phone company's favor. I believe sprint eventually got busted for doing just that in the early 2000s - they got away with it for at least half a decade because the bills were so byzantine that the number of people who actually noticed and bitched cost less than all the extra revenue from the suckers who just paid. On the other hand, some of us just quit sprint and went with another company instead...
It would be interesting to try a completely bogus made up browser (and perhaps a null browser, no user-agent at all) with a plugin like user-agent switcher and see what that yields.
The Great Firewall of China is not foolproof - in fact, there were numerous demonstrations of how easy it is to work around it - but it does strangle the flow of information sufficiently that the majority of people in the country do not have the unbiased facts. So the goal of those running it is still achieved. This case is not fundamentally any different - censorship does work, even when it's not perfect.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the goal of the censorship in each case. China's goal is to maintain widespread ignorance. Censorship of extremist videos is intended to stop radicalization of the very small number of people who are susceptible to it due to their personal circumstances. Those most likely to be radicalized are the very same who are most likely to hunt down the videos on obscure extremist websites where there is absolutely no debate.
So just as China's firewall does not stop 'extremist' dissidents from getting at the censored information nor will this censorship stop the radicalization of people who are prone to it in the first place.
Given that this is the Internet, the comment section for a popular and controversial video is likely to consist of thousands of comments which no sane person is going to read - at best they'll look at the last 2-3 pages, and at the comments which are stickied due to being upmodded.
No sane person is going to be radicalized by watching videos like these either. With youtube at least there is opportunity for good speech to be right there next to the bad speech. Especially with the related videos section in the column on the right of the page.
That's my whole point. At any given time, any design principle of the web has been violated over. All my examples show graceful degradation that was ignored. That you think the "current generation" is any worse than previous generous generations is just Old Man Syndrome.
When there really has been only two generations, I can't agree.
If you call my company and say you're not happy with our work, we come back out and make it right.
Your company is not all companies. My experience is that the regular drones are just as likely to not give a damn, or even worse feel that they are protecting their company's interests by minimising the response to a customer problem.
Correction: Revealed first hit in google to be Wall Street Journal.
I think to get the creepiness quotient expressed properly, 'service' should be in special quotes there.
This stuff is nothing new.
I think its repugnant that a customer needs to make a public sqwak in order to get good service (and thus have your complaining be a permanent public record for data-mining corps). But, on the other hand, at least customers are now better enabled to sqwak in the first place.