ata on bomb incidents (any event in which an actual bomb or bomb look-alike is involved)... For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises.
Based on that first part, they are mixing together actual bombs and fake bombs in that count of 1,055 incidents. In fact, based on the described criteria, this case would probably have qualified.
How many actual detonations do we hear about - at school or anywhere else? Like maybe 1 every couple of years? That stuff tends to get crazy-ass nationwide news coverage when it happens and I can't recall the last time I heard of such a case.
So the school security guard comes and tells us he could have justified shooting us, and tells us to get back inside.
They armed the school security guard? That's fucked up right there all by itself. The chance of a school guard actually needing to use a weapon is going to be vanishingly small - certainly much smaller than the chance of accidentally shooting someone.
Are you actually claiming that it's difficult to buy a Disney movie?
Yes. When Disney puts a title in 'the vault' retailers typically run out of product within a year. OF course there are plenty of bootlegs available to purchase.
Did you even read my quote in context?
Of course I did and I think your analysis is trivial and meaningless your expansion just makes the bad reasoning even more obvious - you saying "scripts of plays are the best substitute... that's not the case for movies" does not make it true - for one thing if movie scripts are not the best substitute for watching a movie - then what is? Playing a video game of the movie? Lol.
And despite your "20 years of studying copyright economics", I've yet to hear some new revolutionary idea from you for paying for the labor of creation.
Yeah, all the ignoramuses make that statement sooner or later, we are right on schedule. You guys all think an argument from ignorance is meaningful. When presented with a handful of alternatives your next response is typically a fallacious argument based on inertia or sometimes your own inability to fully grasp the examples, inventing your own roadblocks because you aren't interested in solving the problem but rather defending your position that the problem is insolvable.
It was proven BTW that both explosives were enough to take down a jet liner. The fact that they failed due to design flaws or improper training does not negate the threat.
Of course it negates the threat! A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. What it doesn't do is negate the fear of brave americans like yourself.
Furthermore, what you say was never proven. Potentially - not even guaranteed - tearing a hole in the fuselage is not enough to take a plane down, if you think otherwise there are tons of counter-examples. And don't even try to say "oh he was sitting over the wing with the fuel tanks" because (a) the fuel tanks were nearly empty it being the end of the flight and (b) the tanks are in the wing, not in the fuselage next to the wing.
Funny thing about suicide bombers, when they are competent they are not available to stand trial. Are you upset that the 9/11 hijackers were not given a fair trial?
Are you a total moron? Stand trial or succeed it doesn't matter because neither has been the case in the USA.
Public good has a specific economic definition. They are goods with positive externalities. IP laws are meant to internalize this externality.
Public goods are, by definition nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. Copyright is an attempt to negate both of those characteristics. You can't consistently say that copyright enables a public good because it tries to make it not a public good. You can't have it both ways simultaneously. Trust me, I'm pretty sure I know more about the economics of copyright than you do, been studying it for nearly 20 years now.
As for the movies, you can actually buy the right to watch the movie.
Like that makes any difference at all. Ever heard of Disney's "vault?"
You may not be aware of this, but unlike plays, they are actually intended to be seen on a screen.
Plays are actually intended to be seen on a stage, not read. Doh.
I think that copyright terms are way too long, but I just don't get why so many people on Slashdot disregard all IP laws as being frivolous and/or useless.
I just don't get why so many people on Slashdot regard IP laws as being the only way to pay for the labor of creation when they are just as broken whether the term is 1 year or 1 millennium.
And, btw, your citing of the riots in france as the result of islamic terrorists is total bullshit. A massive display of ignorance on your part that only shows how ignorant you are of the real world.
Other than initial media hype, its well understood that the riots were not about religion - nobody was running around saying "lets burn those cars in the name of Allah!" The riots were all about economics - the underclass living in the ghettos getting pushed around one time too many. Just like the race riots in the US were not the caused by people being black but rather people being marginalized. A society that doesn't deal equitably with all members is the root cause of riots like those - not religion and not race.
I mean, how many times the Islamic terrorists have struck the infidels ?
Holy shit! World wide your examples killed well under the number of people that die in two months on the road in the USA. And I should be shitting my pants because of that? Get the fuck outta here you innumerate slob.
Except that the type of waterboarding supposedly authorized by the DoJ was not the type actually used at gitmo. So, regardless of all other arguments, the one that claims legal cover due to legal memorandum from the DoJ doesn't fly.
""[T]he waterboard technique... was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training." Footnote, page 41, declassified DoJ memo
Like what happened during 9/11? Or the underpants bomber? Or the shoe bomber? Perhaps the bali bombers? Only the 9/11 hijackers fit the mold of the experienced terrorists. The others are fairly low grade terrorists with nearly no experience, just given a bomb and told to set it off.
You are proving my point. 9/11 was it. Underpants and shoes didn't work - they weren't good enough. Bali bombers were in their home court they had experience with local society.
I didnt realise you work for the CIA or the DHS to know about every foiled attack or plot to say that attacks have been near-zero. Just because you dont see the attacks being foiled, doesnt mean they arent happening.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent. The JFK bombers, the Sears Tower Plot, etc, etc. If they are so willing to trot out these incompetents and actually take them to trial, you can be pretty sure they would at least charge ONE competent terrorist. But so far, nada.
Israel succeeds more often, as they are attacked far, far more often than the US.
TADA! Glad you see my point. Now I just don't understand why you thought you had to argue with me in the first place.
five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Really? We've had, what, like one terrorist attack - the fort hood guy - since then that killed anyone. Ok, I guess the DC sniper counts too.
If anything, we are reeling from too much action - the tens of billions of dollars of wasted productivity every year just because of the pointless hassle at the airports. How many people have died indirectly because of that? What life-saving drugs have been slowed coming to market by 6 months or a year? What charitable contributions to food banks and medical procedures have dried up because the money went to dealing with the inefficiencies created by the TSA?
I'm confident in saying we've killed more people indirectly with our counter-terrorism programs than we have saved. After all, the TSA makes a press release every time they bust a guy with a lot of drugs or water bottle and a taped-up battery pack, but they have never once issued a press release stating that they've stopped an actual terrorist attack on a plane. And when they are actually tested - they miss the bomb 90% of of the time. And just look at the idiots they actually convict of plotting terrorist attacks - like the guys who thought they could blow up JFK by igniting a gas pipeline. The guys they "catch" are so hopeless they were no threat to begin with.
If you want to see how frequent terrorist attacks can become, take a look at Iraq,
Wooooooooooosh!
The reason "terrorist attacks" are so frequent in places like Iraq is because of LOCAL CONDITIONS. Terrorism does not appear out of nowhere. It takes a lot of local infrastructure in order to pull off, including motivated individuals with lots of experience in both the tradecraft of terrorism and the local society.
And, lets see if I get your argument correct here - even though we haven't been doing anything substantial and the number of attacks have been near zero, we need to massively ramp up the amount of effort we put in to stop all those non-existent attacks? Right? Because I'm saying the opposite and you appear to be disagreeing with me.
Actually, Israel is outsmarting the terrorists by staying on the offensive.
And yet they fail far more often than our own counter-terrorism program.
The reason counter-terrorism is in shambles is BECAUSE IT CAN WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS.
The number of actual terror attacks is so damn low, it is in the noise. So it doesn't matter if we have an uber-perfect counter-terrorism program or one that is total bullshit. The results are gonna be pretty much the same - barely any terrorist attacks.
In places where there is a substantial threat, like everybody's favorite example - Israel - they have to actually do something in order to make a difference. And even then the results are far from perfect - they have more successful terrorist attacks in Israel than we have just attempted attacks in the USA.
Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays.
And yet, with the most expansive copyright protections ever implemented in the history of mankind, other than the occasional compilation, usually in the form of a textbook, most movie scripts go unpublished today too.
copyright just makes your subsidy of a public good more direct
It's not a public good if you can't copy it freely. That's kind of by definition. They would be public goods if they weren't artificially constrained by copyright.
Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items)
Don't bet on it. They can only get away with that shit once. It isn't the court that decided that last time, it was a negotiated settlement between the various state DAs offices and the RIAA. The DAs just didn't realize what sharks they were dealing with. I know this because an ex of mine was a junior DA from one of the smaller states on that case and she even got herself quoted in their local paper saying something to the effect of, "I'm sure the senior DAs from around the country will not allow the RIAA to wiggle out of this settlement." Its about 10 years later and that newspaper interview is still one of the funniest things I have to give her shit about.
I'm totally the opposite. If I think their entire reason for existence is privacy invasion, I block the entire site e.g. "tynt.com" - because you never know when they are going to add more stuff to their arsenal, so I prefer to take them out completely by just specifying their top level domain. It has never been a problem in the ~7 years or so that I've been doing it.
until i find a subscribable whitelist (ala AdblockPlus's blacklist) I won't use it.
I don't want to go through the trouble of adding every known benign site to my white list.
I find that the web is remarkably useful without javascript. There are a handful of sites that absolutely require it, but 99% of the time, I don't need javascript to get by. For example, my white list is limited to:
my high school's alumni site my banks' websites bing.com - for the maps only google.com - for maps and voice only, not search youtube addons.mozilla.org
Occasionally I'll make use of the "enable javascript on this site temporarily" but for the most part that's rare (like if I'm shopping at newegg)
I will admit, that on occasion I will give up on a website because it doesn't work without javascript. But there are almost always alternatives that fit the bill and do work just fine.
Saying they leave market makes them look weak and stock price would drop.
Funny, that's exactly what all the state-run chinese newspapers are saying.
And the reason I don't buy it is that plenty of internet companies have dropped various services in various countries and they never needed a scapegoat - American business doesn't give a shit about "saving face" like that.
In fact, one of the most positive things a US business can say is, "this market has proven to be unprofitable so we are cutting our losses by exiting it" - that tends to cause the stock price to go UP because investors expect that the company will no longer be losing money in an unprofitable venture. In the west, there is no shame associated with stopping the loss of more money.
So, while a story about needing to save face may play well with people who have spent all their lives in a culture that values face as much as they do in China, it is just an example of how "the east" has its own share of problems with understanding the way "the west" works.
Slashdot Mirror
ata on bomb incidents (any event in which an actual bomb or bomb look-alike is involved) ...
For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises.
Based on that first part, they are mixing together actual bombs and fake bombs in that count of 1,055 incidents. In fact, based on the described criteria, this case would probably have qualified.
How many actual detonations do we hear about - at school or anywhere else? Like maybe 1 every couple of years? That stuff tends to get crazy-ass nationwide news coverage when it happens and I can't recall the last time I heard of such a case.
So the school security guard comes and tells us he could have justified shooting us, and tells us to get back inside.
They armed the school security guard? That's fucked up right there all by itself. The chance of a school guard actually needing to use a weapon is going to be vanishingly small - certainly much smaller than the chance of accidentally shooting someone.
Are you actually claiming that it's difficult to buy a Disney movie?
Yes. When Disney puts a title in 'the vault' retailers typically run out of product within a year. OF course there are plenty of bootlegs available to purchase.
Did you even read my quote in context?
Of course I did and I think your analysis is trivial and meaningless your expansion just makes the bad reasoning even more obvious - you saying "scripts of plays are the best substitute ... that's not the case for movies" does not make it true - for one thing if movie scripts are not the best substitute for watching a movie - then what is? Playing a video game of the movie? Lol.
And despite your "20 years of studying copyright economics", I've yet to hear some new revolutionary idea from you for paying for the labor of creation.
Yeah, all the ignoramuses make that statement sooner or later, we are right on schedule. You guys all think an argument from ignorance is meaningful. When presented with a handful of alternatives your next response is typically a fallacious argument based on inertia or sometimes your own inability to fully grasp the examples, inventing your own roadblocks because you aren't interested in solving the problem but rather defending your position that the problem is insolvable.
It was proven BTW that both explosives were enough to take down a jet liner. The fact that they failed due to design flaws or improper training does not negate the threat.
Of course it negates the threat! A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. What it doesn't do is negate the fear of brave americans like yourself.
Furthermore, what you say was never proven. Potentially - not even guaranteed - tearing a hole in the fuselage is not enough to take a plane down, if you think otherwise there are tons of counter-examples. And don't even try to say "oh he was sitting over the wing with the fuel tanks" because (a) the fuel tanks were nearly empty it being the end of the flight and (b) the tanks are in the wing, not in the fuselage next to the wing.
Funny thing about suicide bombers, when they are competent they are not available to stand trial. Are you upset that the 9/11 hijackers were not given a fair trial?
Are you a total moron? Stand trial or succeed it doesn't matter because neither has been the case in the USA.
Public good has a specific economic definition. They are goods with positive externalities. IP laws are meant to internalize this externality.
Public goods are, by definition nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. Copyright is an attempt to negate both of those characteristics. You can't consistently say that copyright enables a public good because it tries to make it not a public good. You can't have it both ways simultaneously. Trust me, I'm pretty sure I know more about the economics of copyright than you do, been studying it for nearly 20 years now.
As for the movies, you can actually buy the right to watch the movie.
Like that makes any difference at all. Ever heard of Disney's "vault?"
You may not be aware of this, but unlike plays, they are actually intended to be seen on a screen.
Plays are actually intended to be seen on a stage, not read. Doh.
I think that copyright terms are way too long, but I just don't get why so many people on Slashdot disregard all IP laws as being frivolous and/or useless.
I just don't get why so many people on Slashdot regard IP laws as being the only way to pay for the labor of creation when they are just as broken whether the term is 1 year or 1 millennium.
* Riots and car burning in France
And, btw, your citing of the riots in france as the result of islamic terrorists is total bullshit. A massive display of ignorance on your part that only shows how ignorant you are of the real world.
Other than initial media hype, its well understood that the riots were not about religion - nobody was running around saying "lets burn those cars in the name of Allah!" The riots were all about economics - the underclass living in the ghettos getting pushed around one time too many. Just like the race riots in the US were not the caused by people being black but rather people being marginalized. A society that doesn't deal equitably with all members is the root cause of riots like those - not religion and not race.
I mean, how many times the Islamic terrorists have struck the infidels ?
Holy shit! World wide your examples killed well under the number of people that die in two months on the road in the USA.
And I should be shitting my pants because of that? Get the fuck outta here you innumerate slob.
Except that the type of waterboarding supposedly authorized by the DoJ was not the type actually used at gitmo.
So, regardless of all other arguments, the one that claims legal cover due to legal memorandum from the DoJ doesn't fly.
""[T]he waterboard technique ... was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training."
Footnote, page 41, declassified DoJ memo
Like what happened during 9/11? Or the underpants bomber? Or the shoe bomber? Perhaps the bali bombers? Only the 9/11 hijackers fit the mold of the experienced terrorists. The others are fairly low grade terrorists with nearly no experience, just given a bomb and told to set it off.
You are proving my point. 9/11 was it. Underpants and shoes didn't work - they weren't good enough. Bali bombers were in their home court they had experience with local society.
I didnt realise you work for the CIA or the DHS to know about every foiled attack or plot to say that attacks have been near-zero. Just because you dont see the attacks being foiled, doesnt mean they arent happening.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent. The JFK bombers, the Sears Tower Plot, etc, etc. If they are so willing to trot out these incompetents and actually take them to trial, you can be pretty sure they would at least charge ONE competent terrorist. But so far, nada.
Israel succeeds more often, as they are attacked far, far more often than the US.
TADA! Glad you see my point. Now I just don't understand why you thought you had to argue with me in the first place.
five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Really? We've had, what, like one terrorist attack - the fort hood guy - since then that killed anyone. Ok, I guess the DC sniper counts too.
If anything, we are reeling from too much action - the tens of billions of dollars of wasted productivity every year just because of the pointless hassle at the airports. How many people have died indirectly because of that? What life-saving drugs have been slowed coming to market by 6 months or a year? What charitable contributions to food banks and medical procedures have dried up because the money went to dealing with the inefficiencies created by the TSA?
I'm confident in saying we've killed more people indirectly with our counter-terrorism programs than we have saved. After all, the TSA makes a press release every time they bust a guy with a lot of drugs or water bottle and a taped-up battery pack, but they have never once issued a press release stating that they've stopped an actual terrorist attack on a plane. And when they are actually tested - they miss the bomb 90% of of the time. And just look at the idiots they actually convict of plotting terrorist attacks - like the guys who thought they could blow up JFK by igniting a gas pipeline. The guys they "catch" are so hopeless they were no threat to begin with.
I want to order pizza and ice cream on earth, delivered by cannon.
That's what ICBMs are for - Ice Cream Ballistic Missiles.
If you want to see how frequent terrorist attacks can become, take a look at Iraq,
Wooooooooooosh!
The reason "terrorist attacks" are so frequent in places like Iraq is because of LOCAL CONDITIONS. Terrorism does not appear out of nowhere. It takes a lot of local infrastructure in order to pull off, including motivated individuals with lots of experience in both the tradecraft of terrorism and the local society.
And, lets see if I get your argument correct here - even though we haven't been doing anything substantial and the number of attacks have been near zero, we need to massively ramp up the amount of effort we put in to stop all those non-existent attacks? Right? Because I'm saying the opposite and you appear to be disagreeing with me.
Actually, Israel is outsmarting the terrorists by staying on the offensive.
And yet they fail far more often than our own counter-terrorism program.
The reason counter-terrorism is in shambles is BECAUSE IT CAN WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS.
The number of actual terror attacks is so damn low, it is in the noise. So it doesn't matter if we have an uber-perfect counter-terrorism program or one that is total bullshit. The results are gonna be pretty much the same - barely any terrorist attacks.
In places where there is a substantial threat, like everybody's favorite example - Israel - they have to actually do something in order to make a difference. And even then the results are far from perfect - they have more successful terrorist attacks in Israel than we have just attempted attacks in the USA.
I am so fucking looking forward to the blu ray of "All Saints Day" - due out March 9th.
Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays.
And yet, with the most expansive copyright protections ever implemented in the history of mankind, other than the occasional compilation, usually in the form of a textbook, most movie scripts go unpublished today too.
copyright just makes your subsidy of a public good more direct
It's not a public good if you can't copy it freely. That's kind of by definition.
They would be public goods if they weren't artificially constrained by copyright.
Here's a video of a morse coder kicking the ass of top texter at the time:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/89338/morse_code_leno/
That reminds me... one thing to add to this article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZfbTlYpKYo
Don't forget the classic: TSA Gangstaz.
Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items)
Don't bet on it. They can only get away with that shit once. It isn't the court that decided that last time, it was a negotiated settlement between the various state DAs offices and the RIAA. The DAs just didn't realize what sharks they were dealing with. I know this because an ex of mine was a junior DA from one of the smaller states on that case and she even got herself quoted in their local paper saying something to the effect of, "I'm sure the senior DAs from around the country will not allow the RIAA to wiggle out of this settlement." Its about 10 years later and that newspaper interview is still one of the funniest things I have to give her shit about.
The politicians just followed the prevailing winds like always.
So much for the idea that politicians should have leadership skills.
More like ring-in-the-nose skills.
The first four minutes of the video are spent asking which topic the room wants to see. No need to watch that part. Then it gets more interesting.
That's just the branch predictor pre-loading the cache for each possible conditional result.
I'm totally the opposite. If I think their entire reason for existence is privacy invasion, I block the entire site e.g. "tynt.com" - because you never know when they are going to add more stuff to their arsenal, so I prefer to take them out completely by just specifying their top level domain. It has never been a problem in the ~7 years or so that I've been doing it.
until i find a subscribable whitelist (ala AdblockPlus's blacklist) I won't use it.
I don't want to go through the trouble of adding every known benign site to my white list.
I find that the web is remarkably useful without javascript. There are a handful of sites that absolutely require it, but 99% of the time, I don't need javascript to get by. For example, my white list is limited to:
my high school's alumni site
my banks' websites
bing.com - for the maps only
google.com - for maps and voice only, not search
youtube
addons.mozilla.org
Occasionally I'll make use of the "enable javascript on this site temporarily" but for the most part that's rare (like if I'm shopping at newegg)
I will admit, that on occasion I will give up on a website because it doesn't work without javascript. But there are almost always alternatives that fit the bill and do work just fine.
Don't like it? Metamoderate.
It is impossible to metamoderate without javascript.
The irony of that requirement is particularly stark given the context of this slashdot article.
Saying they leave market makes them look weak and stock price would drop.
Funny, that's exactly what all the state-run chinese newspapers are saying.
And the reason I don't buy it is that plenty of internet companies have dropped various services in various countries and they never needed a scapegoat - American business doesn't give a shit about "saving face" like that.
In fact, one of the most positive things a US business can say is, "this market has proven to be unprofitable so we are cutting our losses by exiting it" - that tends to cause the stock price to go UP because investors expect that the company will no longer be losing money in an unprofitable venture. In the west, there is no shame associated with stopping the loss of more money.
So, while a story about needing to save face may play well with people who have spent all their lives in a culture that values face as much as they do in China, it is just an example of how "the east" has its own share of problems with understanding the way "the west" works.
If you spray an insect with water containing soap you will kill it too, are you going to stop taking baths?
Since that works by drowning the bug, I think I will stop spraying soapy water up my nose.
Salt has some rather nasty effects on slugs, so you better get rid of that.
Been trying to cut down the amount of sodium in my diet, thanks for the advice.
Insects are different that humans.
And yet we have a lot more in common than we have differences.