It's kind of funny to me that people will pay $80 cable bills without a whimper but will cry foul at the concept of paying $13 a month to TiVo to make the cable service so much more worthwhile.
When people ask me about it, I ask them "would you pay $13 a month for to have a TV channel that always has something you like on it, whenever you want to watch it, with no commercials?
Cable DVRs suck. Most people would be much happier with a TiVo and would find the extra expense to be justified. I know I'm biased but I honestly believe that.
I have no connection to Tivo, other than being a long time user, and agree completely. I had Time Warner's Scientific Atlanta box in my home for three weeks before I called and demanded they remove it immediately. I gave back 40 channels of digital music and 50 hours of recording capacity with two tuners for my little single tuner, 15 hour Tivo. The TW box was that bad. I was amazed that they could pack that much suck into just one box.
The bottom line? The same-ish number of people smoke and cause themselves harm, but smoke somewhat less than before, maybe about 20% fewer cigarettes.
That's not what's happening. People are smoking just as much, they're just being more resourceful.
Ever time taxes go up, a new batch of smokers discover the joy of buying tax free over the internet. Some of them may actually end up smoking more, because their smokes are now so much cheaper.
And then the state spends money trying to vilify these citizens, who are simply throwing their own tea party, and recover the "lost" taxes that they never would have lost in the first place if they hadn't been so greedy.
Why is it when this college kid breaks a law (spam), Slashdot is ready to fire him out of a cannon, but when a different college kid breaks a different law (DMCA, DVD CSS, Apple trade secret lawsuits, insert other offense here), they rush to his defense?
Different victims. We are all victims of spam, so we love seeing the perpetrators brought to justice. (I think an appropriate sentence would be one minute of jail time for every spam they've sent, with no opportunity for parole.) The victims of violating the laws you cite are Big Nasty Corporations, who, in most cases, have been ripping off their customers and artists forever. Seeing them ripped off in turn is like hearing OJ was killed in a knife fight.
Humans can't hear above 20k. (A few people can hear a bit higher, but not much.) The mikes don't record above 20k. Even if they could, the mixing board wouldn't handle anything above 20k. Even if they could, and you had a tape deck capable of recording 30k, the machines that cut the vinyl masters didn't go above 20k. Even if they could, the cartridge that played back the recording didn't go above 20k. Even if it did, the amp it was being run through couldn't process anything over 20k. Even if it could, the speakers the music was being pumped through didn't handle anything over 20k.
So the argument that analog sounds better because it captured and played back higher frequencies is completely bogus. And even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference to human ears.
Rather than perusing the holy grail of 30k tones, you'd be better off adding some Shakti stones and/or a Hallograph sound optimizer to your system. Of course, you should first use a green magic marker to improve the sound of your CDs.
("Shakti" is a word from an ancient dialect of an ancient language, which means "There's one born every minute.")
While true in some cases, it is unfair to stereotype the politican as a greedy malfeasant who only wants what is best for his corporate donors. This is true for some politicians, and we must target them. By lumping them all together, we end up taking down the good with the bad.
With one possible exception (Ron Paul) everyone in the House and the Senate is a wholly owned subsidiary of several corporate interests. Most are owned by a combination of trial lawyers, big pharma, and the entertainment industry.
You can write and call an e-mail them all day, but unless your complaint is accompanied by a very large check, they will pretend to be concerned, pat you on the head, and then return to serveing their owners.
They're out for blood and need to make an example of him.
Exactly. And that's a good thing.
We make an example of him so other spammers will think twice before they harass us.
Now we need to make examples of a few dozen more, so the threat becomes real enough to deter other spammers.
What I have been wondering is why spammers even need to spend time in jail.
Because they're thieves, even if no falls for their scam. They steal time and bandwidth and dozens of other resources.
We put thieves in jail. This not only takes them out of circulation (preventing their thievery for the duration of their incarceration) but provides a strong disincentive for other people considering theft as an occupation.
I think he got off light. A minute of jail time for every spam sent would have been a more appropriate sentence, and one that would keep him locked up for a lifetime.
What would happen in if they lost, but the jury awarded the RIAA a dollar a song, or some other ridiculously low sum?
Of course, we'd have to get a jury that wasn't packed with brain dead morons, no small feat.
It doesn't have to be elegent
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 1
Enable was an office suite that allowed multiple windows and cutting and pasting between applications on a DOS platform. Predating windows, it performed well on a 286. It was very popular with the military, IRS and other government branches, until Windows finally killed it. The company was essentially dead in '93, but it limped along, filling the last part of a few long term contracts, until it finally closed it's doors in '97. I worked in tech support and ran their BBS until '95.
The code was hardly elegant. It was written in spaghetti assembler the programmers found almost impossible to maintain, and it got more cumbersome with each new version of the product. The modules were all pretty decent, but none were spectacular. (I still miss the dot report language for the database, though - you could get a lot done with very little code.) It's only saving grace was it provided a lot of power for wimpy computers. As computers got more and more powerful, that became unimportant.
Two years after the company closed down I received a phone call from one of our customers, a developer who had created some very elegant applications in Enable. (This wasn't easy to do, as the development tools were very clunky.) He had bought the hard drive to the BBS and had questions about how it was organized. Turns out he's working for a missionary group that referbs old, old computers, 286s and up, and gives them to communities in developing countries. He's outfitting them with Enable - a copyright violation to be sure, but who cares at this point? The BBS was full of examples of how to do this or that - little database applications, telecom scripts, funky spreadsheets, as well as archived messages bases answering questions about the product. He wanted to make a list of everything available to his end users, and send them whatever they requested via e-mail.
I thought it was rather cool knowing that stuff I did a decade ago, and forgot about, is now being used by someone, somewhere, on an old clunky computer. And Enable, decent software that is horribly, horribly coded, lives on, not because it's elegant, but because it works well on old computers that none of us want any more.
I used to run a 21 line BBS at home, and eight of the modems were Practical Peripherals PM14400FXMT. (The others were 28K). I could tell, by the patterns of the lights, what people were doing. Chat was one pattern, game playing was another, and reading and posting message boards was yet another.
But to pick the actual data from the flashes? Yeah, sure.
I absolutely agree, although I think it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that the RIAA got where it is only because artists were willing to sign up with them, under the RIAA's terms.
There are no other terms available. With very few exceptions, signing up on an indie label gets you nowhere, and all the big boys have such similar contracts that there is no real choice. So the choice is between selling your soul and remaining obscure and unknown. The choice of keeping possession of your work, and even of your name, isn't offered.
...GE's Corporate R&D center is more of a engineer support center than an R&D center now
I did contract work at GE's CR&D from 1997-1999. There are some engineers there, but most of the work is pure R&D, conducted by some of the best scientists in the world. GE literally scouts the globe for them; it wasn't uncommon to hear six researchers having a conversation in six distinct accents. CR&D registers 800-900 patents per year, year after year. They have one large department that does nothing but handle the patents.
Our company provided computer support, and researcher's natural curiosity meant they screwed up their PCs a lot, in new and amazing ways. Few things were more frightening then hearing one of them say "Hey, I just discovered Regedit!"
They liked to look over your shoulder to see what you were doing, and when that got annoying I'd just ask "What do you do in this lab?" I learned a lot about Lexan and aircraft engines and MRIs and polymers and rapid prototyping and refrigerators and washing machines and avionics and light bulbs and chip fabrication and a thousand other things that had nothing to do with my job.
In the main reception area of the plant there was a large framed display that featured head shots of their top researchers, in order of the number of patents they had received. There were a couple with more than 150, quite a few with more than 100, even more with more than 50 and then lots with 25 or more. While most folks would be quite impressed with anyone who had ten or fifteen or twenty patents, that wasn't enough to even get noticed there.
I can't speak for anyone else's R&D, but GE's is still alive and well, and cranking out new inventions and improvement to old ones on a regular basis.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are engaged in a legal but controversial business.
Let's say you're a butcher. Now imagine that the ALF has been murdering butchers,
even shooting them in their homes.
One day, while you're on your way to your car, a stranger calls you by name. He
starts talking about the weather, and casually refers to your wife, where she works,
and what kind of car she drives. He talks about your kids, by name, and the
school they attend. He describes your house. He mentions how other people in
your profession have been killed, and that they think that's a fine and wonderful
thing. He identifies himself as a supporter of the ALF, and then leaves, never
having directly threatened you.
As he walks away, he turns and says "Oh, by the way, all the information
I just mentioned is on a web site, along with all the other butchers we'd like
to see killed."
Would you consider that a legitimate threat?
Free speech has never included threats, especially real, credible threats.
The judges mistake in this decision is ignoring the climate. For instance, doing
the same thing to Microsoft employees wouldn't be the same thing, because there
is no organized movement to shoot them. It would be seen as a joke, not as anything
real or credible.
But there is such a movement for abortion doctors. And there was no
doubt that this site was not a joke. It was a real and credible threat. Shutting
it down was the right thing to do.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you
enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera
to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to
do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
You failed to mention that it was the police who were doing this. That
makes just a bit of difference, don't you think?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing
draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property,
I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that
are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.
They were not protecting their property. They were cooperating with the cops
to do the electronic equalivent of stopping everyone and saying "may I haff
you papers, please." They were not looking for a specific criminal. They were
casting a giant net on everyone who entered that stadium. Does this seem like
a good idea to you?
It's interesting to note that the only "criminal" they discovered was a ticket
scalper - someone who participates in what should be a perfectly valid trade
of a legal item. As we continue to criminalize harmless activities like this,
to the point where it's virtually impossible for anyone to avoid being a criminal,
this technology will become more and more valuable to the authorities. Post
a link to
a drug related web site, and you better stay home.
First of all, it's worth noting that this is a prediction based on a theory. Scientists are trying to explain why we haven't yet seen as much global warming as the models would suggest, and this is one possible explanation--not absolute fact. Remember, back in the '70s, global cooling was the environmental boogeyman.
It's also interesting to note that if you put historical data into any of the models these "scientists" are enamored with, they don't work. In other words, put in known data from the 1700s and 1800s, run the simulation to the present day, and what you get bears no resemblance to our weather.
Second, the IPCC has done some shady things before, such as changing the executive summary of a report after it was peer reviewed (my source for this is a series of letters to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal several years ago). Finally, there is a significant amount of controversy in the scientific community surrounding global warming.
Let's not forget that the UN is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Their primary interest is increasing their funding and power. Would you believe a panel of scientists that declared there was absolutely no danger of global warming, ever, or suspect that they had been cherry-picked by whatever organization was backing them? Although there is a considerable amount of debate on this subject among real climateoligists, the UN's hand picked panel voted unanimously. That should tell you everything you need to know about the validity of this "finding."
though Stang cautions that his study needs confirmation
Good for him. It sounds like he's a responsible scientist who's found a correlation worthy of further increase. He also has at least the beginnings of a mechanism to explain the correlation. Unfortunately, the Sunday Times has done the usual media thing, and overreacted. One study does not a fact make.
Early epidemiological studies of breast cancer indicated that multiple pregnancies had a protective effect. Women with many children were less likely to get breast cancer than women with only one or two kids, and women with no children had the highest risk. Additional studies confirmed this. Then someone noted that women with larger families usually start having kids at a younger age than women with smaller families, and researched that connection. They learned that the preventive effects were not tied to family size, but the woman's age at the time of her first pregnancy. Pregnancy before age 20 reduces the risk of breast cancer, regardless of the number of pregnancies that follow.
The early studies were carefully done, peer reviewed, widely accepted, and wrong. The correlation did not prove causation. An overlooked confounder caused the effect.
If you can only remember one fact from about epidemiology, remember this one, as it is the most important: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation.
Health information is unique. It makes sense to have some form of objective
evaluation of sites providing healthcare information.
If that's your goal that the WHO is one of the worst choices you could make.
They are a political organization with a political agenda, and as such their
conclusions should be considered suspect, if not highly suspect.
A couple of years ago they did a very comprehensive, well designed study on
the issue of Second Hand Smoke. Much to their displeasure and horror, they found
that it caused no harm at all. They tried to bury the report. When the British
press, though constant hounding, embarrassed them into publicizing their results,
they issued a press release. In the body of the release they admitted that the
tiny increases they found were not at all statistically significant, but they
outright lied in the headline.
These are not the people who should be determining what is and is not
good for you. A more valid approach would be convening an independent group
of experts who would look at sites and give them their stamp of approval. They
could also maintain a list of sites they considered quacky.
Political organizations are always tainted by their quest to increase their
funding and power. If you doubt that, a close look at the EPA or the FDA should
convince you rather quickly
I've used the handle "Hittman" for years. I wonder how many Nannyware alarms that's set off. I stopped using my full name and middle initial, David S Hitt, long before I got on line.
Back in the days of BBSs Glaticom's chat had an optional nanny filter. Chatters discovered they couldn't discuss wine, at least not Chardonnay.
It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticize anyone except WMCs.
Usually this is two separate complaints, from two separate people: "White Males are the last group it's OK to criticize." and "Christians are the last group it's OK to criticize." The same complaint is often made by fat people and ugly people and stupid people and smokers and blonds and atheists and agnostics and...it's an endless list. Everyone is under the mistaken impression that their group is the only one being criticized. I hate to break it to you, but your persecution complex is unjustified.
I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right.
I'd like to know that too, because as far as I can tell, it hasn't happened. The "art" display "Sensations" in NYC is a good example - it was lambasted from every possible angle, and the media covered the complaints pretty well. You're no where near silenced - your exact opinion and complaints received wide media coverage. And your comment here was even given a +2 rating, giving it more prominence, especially for those of us who filter.
Your voice has been heard, and will continue to be heard. The voices of those who feel the same are also being heard, and will continue to be heard. Any persecution or censorship you think you're experiencing is purely imaginary.
The thing is, most people seem to have little problem with ripping MP3's in the first place - the internet community [forgive my use of that term] is pissed off at the recording industry already for trying to take away their "rights" by cracking down on MP3's and pushing secure formats.
That's not why most people are pissed at the recording industry. Most people who hate the record companies don't even know what an MP3 is. They hate the recording industry because they love their musicians dearly, and know that the recording industry has been ripping off both the artists and the music buying public since Edison recorded "Mary Had a Little Lamb."
This kid deserves whatever he gets.
So if he gets, say, five years in jail for a link he deserves it? Some sense of justice you have there.
Ripped MP3's are illegal. Period. If I had a link on my page that lead directly do a download of Photoshop or Win 98, I would be totally not surprised if Microsoft and the FBI came knocking on my door.
So is "directly download" where you draw the line? How about a link just to a page full of wares? What's the difference? And if it's OK to go after that, why not a link to a page that advocates any illegal activity?
Here's a simple tactic no one has suggested yet: send them a bill. Just create an invoice and bill them for non-exclusive rights to your article. Don't make it for an outrageous amount, but make it for more than they would have had to pay if they hadn't ripped you off. $150 sounds about right.
They just may decide it's cheap insurance against a lawsuit, and you'll get something for your troubles.
Slashdot Mirror
When people say "It's a free country" I always ask them where they live.
It's kind of funny to me that people will pay $80 cable bills without a whimper but will cry foul at the concept of paying $13 a month to TiVo to make the cable service so much more worthwhile.
When people ask me about it, I ask them "would you pay $13 a month for to have a TV channel that always has something you like on it, whenever you want to watch it, with no commercials?
Cable DVRs suck. Most people would be much happier with a TiVo and would find the extra expense to be justified. I know I'm biased but I honestly believe that.
I have no connection to Tivo, other than being a long time user, and agree completely. I had Time Warner's Scientific Atlanta box in my home for three weeks before I called and demanded they remove it immediately. I gave back 40 channels of digital music and 50 hours of recording capacity with two tuners for my little single tuner, 15 hour Tivo. The TW box was that bad. I was amazed that they could pack that much suck into just one box.
How badly did it suck? Let me count the ways.
The bottom line? The same-ish number of people smoke and cause themselves harm, but smoke somewhat less than before, maybe about 20% fewer cigarettes.
That's not what's happening. People are smoking just as much, they're just being more resourceful.
Ever time taxes go up, a new batch of smokers discover the joy of buying tax free over the internet. Some of them may actually end up smoking more, because their smokes are now so much cheaper.
And then the state spends money trying to vilify these citizens, who are simply throwing their own tea party, and recover the "lost" taxes that they never would have lost in the first place if they hadn't been so greedy.
$35 an hour if you leave me alone.
$50 an hour if you watch.
$100 an hour if you help.
Why is it when this college kid breaks a law (spam), Slashdot is ready to fire him out of a cannon, but when a different college kid breaks a different law (DMCA, DVD CSS, Apple trade secret lawsuits, insert other offense here), they rush to his defense?
Different victims. We are all victims of spam, so we love seeing the perpetrators brought to justice. (I think an appropriate sentence would be one minute of jail time for every spam they've sent, with no opportunity for parole.) The victims of violating the laws you cite are Big Nasty Corporations, who, in most cases, have been ripping off their customers and artists forever. Seeing them ripped off in turn is like hearing OJ was killed in a knife fight.
Humans can't hear above 20k. (A few people can hear a bit higher, but not much.) The mikes don't record above 20k. Even if they could, the mixing board wouldn't handle anything above 20k. Even if they could, and you had a tape deck capable of recording 30k, the machines that cut the vinyl masters didn't go above 20k. Even if they could, the cartridge that played back the recording didn't go above 20k. Even if it did, the amp it was being run through couldn't process anything over 20k. Even if it could, the speakers the music was being pumped through didn't handle anything over 20k.
So the argument that analog sounds better because it captured and played back higher frequencies is completely bogus. And even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference to human ears.
Rather than perusing the holy grail of 30k tones, you'd be better off adding some Shakti stones and/or a Hallograph sound optimizer to your system. Of course, you should first use a green magic marker to improve the sound of your CDs.
("Shakti" is a word from an ancient dialect of an ancient language, which means "There's one born every minute.")"If you're econ 101 classes are so right and I'm so wrong why are movie studios bitching about lost profits?"
Because they're lying. Surprise, Surprise.
While true in some cases, it is unfair to stereotype the politican as a greedy malfeasant who only wants what is best for his corporate donors. This is true for some politicians, and we must target them. By lumping them all together, we end up taking down the good with the bad.
With one possible exception (Ron Paul) everyone in the House and the Senate is a wholly owned subsidiary of several corporate interests. Most are owned by a combination of trial lawyers, big pharma, and the entertainment industry.
You can write and call an e-mail them all day, but unless your complaint is accompanied by a very large check, they will pretend to be concerned, pat you on the head, and then return to serveing their owners.
They're out for blood and need to make an example of him.
Exactly. And that's a good thing.
We make an example of him so other spammers will think twice before they harass us.
Now we need to make examples of a few dozen more, so the threat becomes real enough to deter other spammers.
What I have been wondering is why spammers even need to spend time in jail.
Because they're thieves, even if no falls for their scam. They steal time and bandwidth and dozens of other resources.
We put thieves in jail. This not only takes them out of circulation (preventing their thievery for the duration of their incarceration) but provides a strong disincentive for other people considering theft as an occupation.
I think he got off light. A minute of jail time for every spam sent would have been a more appropriate sentence, and one that would keep him locked up for a lifetime.
What would happen in if they lost, but the jury awarded the RIAA a dollar a song, or some other ridiculously low sum?
Of course, we'd have to get a jury that wasn't packed with brain dead morons, no small feat.
Enable was an office suite that allowed multiple windows and cutting and pasting between applications on a DOS platform. Predating windows, it performed well on a 286. It was very popular with the military, IRS and other government branches, until Windows finally killed it. The company was essentially dead in '93, but it limped along, filling the last part of a few long term contracts, until it finally closed it's doors in '97. I worked in tech support and ran their BBS until '95.
The code was hardly elegant. It was written in spaghetti assembler the programmers found almost impossible to maintain, and it got more cumbersome with each new version of the product. The modules were all pretty decent, but none were spectacular. (I still miss the dot report language for the database, though - you could get a lot done with very little code.) It's only saving grace was it provided a lot of power for wimpy computers. As computers got more and more powerful, that became unimportant.
Two years after the company closed down I received a phone call from one of our customers, a developer who had created some very elegant applications in Enable. (This wasn't easy to do, as the development tools were very clunky.) He had bought the hard drive to the BBS and had questions about how it was organized. Turns out he's working for a missionary group that referbs old, old computers, 286s and up, and gives them to communities in developing countries. He's outfitting them with Enable - a copyright violation to be sure, but who cares at this point? The BBS was full of examples of how to do this or that - little database applications, telecom scripts, funky spreadsheets, as well as archived messages bases answering questions about the product. He wanted to make a list of everything available to his end users, and send them whatever they requested via e-mail.
I thought it was rather cool knowing that stuff I did a decade ago, and forgot about, is now being used by someone, somewhere, on an old clunky computer. And Enable, decent software that is horribly, horribly coded, lives on, not because it's elegant, but because it works well on old computers that none of us want any more.
I used to run a 21 line BBS at home, and eight of the modems were Practical Peripherals PM14400FXMT. (The others were 28K). I could tell, by the patterns of the lights, what people were doing. Chat was one pattern, game playing was another, and reading and posting message boards was yet another.
But to pick the actual data from the flashes? Yeah, sure.
I absolutely agree, although I think it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that the RIAA got where it is only because artists were willing to sign up with them, under the RIAA's terms.
There are no other terms available. With very few exceptions, signing up on an indie label gets you nowhere, and all the big boys have such similar contracts that there is no real choice. So the choice is between selling your soul and remaining obscure and unknown. The choice of keeping possession of your work, and even of your name, isn't offered.
You'll find plenty of cases where a criminal harmed by a victim who was protecting himself has successfully sued for damages.
Which is an excellent justification for killing him, rather than just hurting him.
I did contract work at GE's CR&D from 1997-1999. There are some engineers there, but most of the work is pure R&D, conducted by some of the best scientists in the world. GE literally scouts the globe for them; it wasn't uncommon to hear six researchers having a conversation in six distinct accents. CR&D registers 800-900 patents per year, year after year. They have one large department that does nothing but handle the patents.
Our company provided computer support, and researcher's natural curiosity meant they screwed up their PCs a lot, in new and amazing ways. Few things were more frightening then hearing one of them say "Hey, I just discovered Regedit!"
They liked to look over your shoulder to see what you were doing, and when that got annoying I'd just ask "What do you do in this lab?" I learned a lot about Lexan and aircraft engines and MRIs and polymers and rapid prototyping and refrigerators and washing machines and avionics and light bulbs and chip fabrication and a thousand other things that had nothing to do with my job.
In the main reception area of the plant there was a large framed display that featured head shots of their top researchers, in order of the number of patents they had received. There were a couple with more than 150, quite a few with more than 100, even more with more than 50 and then lots with 25 or more. While most folks would be quite impressed with anyone who had ten or fifteen or twenty patents, that wasn't enough to even get noticed there.
I can't speak for anyone else's R&D, but GE's is still alive and well, and cranking out new inventions and improvement to old ones on a regular basis.
---
Check out The Hittman Chronicle
Imagine, for a moment, that you are engaged in a legal but controversial business. Let's say you're a butcher. Now imagine that the ALF has been murdering butchers, even shooting them in their homes.
One day, while you're on your way to your car, a stranger calls you by name. He starts talking about the weather, and casually refers to your wife, where she works, and what kind of car she drives. He talks about your kids, by name, and the school they attend. He describes your house. He mentions how other people in your profession have been killed, and that they think that's a fine and wonderful thing. He identifies himself as a supporter of the ALF, and then leaves, never having directly threatened you.
As he walks away, he turns and says "Oh, by the way, all the information I just mentioned is on a web site, along with all the other butchers we'd like to see killed."
Would you consider that a legitimate threat?
Free speech has never included threats, especially real, credible threats. The judges mistake in this decision is ignoring the climate. For instance, doing the same thing to Microsoft employees wouldn't be the same thing, because there is no organized movement to shoot them. It would be seen as a joke, not as anything real or credible.
But there is such a movement for abortion doctors. And there was no doubt that this site was not a joke. It was a real and credible threat. Shutting it down was the right thing to do.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
You failed to mention that it was the police who were doing this. That makes just a bit of difference, don't you think?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property, I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.They were not protecting their property. They were cooperating with the cops to do the electronic equalivent of stopping everyone and saying "may I haff you papers, please." They were not looking for a specific criminal. They were casting a giant net on everyone who entered that stadium. Does this seem like a good idea to you?
It's interesting to note that the only "criminal" they discovered was a ticket scalper - someone who participates in what should be a perfectly valid trade of a legal item. As we continue to criminalize harmless activities like this, to the point where it's virtually impossible for anyone to avoid being a criminal, this technology will become more and more valuable to the authorities. Post a link to a drug related web site, and you better stay home.
For all the news that might amuse read The Hittman Chroincle.
First of all, it's worth noting that this is a prediction based on a theory. Scientists are trying to explain why we haven't yet seen as much global warming as the models would suggest, and this is one possible explanation--not absolute fact. Remember, back in the '70s, global cooling was the environmental boogeyman.
It's also interesting to note that if you put historical data into any of the models these "scientists" are enamored with, they don't work. In other words, put in known data from the 1700s and 1800s, run the simulation to the present day, and what you get bears no resemblance to our weather.
Second, the IPCC has done some shady things before, such as changing the executive summary of a report after it was peer reviewed (my source for this is a series of letters to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal several years ago). Finally, there is a significant amount of controversy in the scientific community surrounding global warming.
Let's not forget that the UN is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Their primary interest is increasing their funding and power. Would you believe a panel of scientists that declared there was absolutely no danger of global warming, ever, or suspect that they had been cherry-picked by whatever organization was backing them? Although there is a considerable amount of debate on this subject among real climateoligists, the UN's hand picked panel voted unanimously. That should tell you everything you need to know about the validity of this "finding."
Good for him. It sounds like he's a responsible scientist who's found a correlation worthy of further increase. He also has at least the beginnings of a mechanism to explain the correlation. Unfortunately, the Sunday Times has done the usual media thing, and overreacted. One study does not a fact make.
Early epidemiological studies of breast cancer indicated that multiple pregnancies had a protective effect. Women with many children were less likely to get breast cancer than women with only one or two kids, and women with no children had the highest risk. Additional studies confirmed this. Then someone noted that women with larger families usually start having kids at a younger age than women with smaller families, and researched that connection. They learned that the preventive effects were not tied to family size, but the woman's age at the time of her first pregnancy. Pregnancy before age 20 reduces the risk of breast cancer, regardless of the number of pregnancies that follow.
The early studies were carefully done, peer reviewed, widely accepted, and wrong. The correlation did not prove causation. An overlooked confounder caused the effect.
If you can only remember one fact from about epidemiology, remember this one, as it is the most important: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation.
Health information is unique. It makes sense to have some form of objective evaluation of sites providing healthcare information.
If that's your goal that the WHO is one of the worst choices you could make. They are a political organization with a political agenda, and as such their conclusions should be considered suspect, if not highly suspect.
A couple of years ago they did a very comprehensive, well designed study on the issue of Second Hand Smoke. Much to their displeasure and horror, they found that it caused no harm at all. They tried to bury the report. When the British press, though constant hounding, embarrassed them into publicizing their results, they issued a press release. In the body of the release they admitted that the tiny increases they found were not at all statistically significant, but they outright lied in the headline.
More information is available here.
These are not the people who should be determining what is and is not good for you. A more valid approach would be convening an independent group of experts who would look at sites and give them their stamp of approval. They could also maintain a list of sites they considered quacky.
Political organizations are always tainted by their quest to increase their funding and power. If you doubt that, a close look at the EPA or the FDA should convince you rather quickly
-- Get Smartenized! Read the Hittman Chronicle
I've used the handle "Hittman" for years. I wonder how many Nannyware alarms that's set off. I stopped using my full name and middle initial, David S Hitt, long before I got on line.
Back in the days of BBSs Glaticom's chat had an optional nanny filter. Chatters discovered they couldn't discuss wine, at least not Chardonnay.
Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?
It should be pretty easy. All you have to do is give congress weasels more money than the movie, recording and broadcast industry already does.
I'd be happy to lend you a couple billion, which would barely get you started, but yesterday someone stole my wallet.
It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticize anyone except WMCs.
Usually this is two separate complaints, from two separate people: "White Males are the last group it's OK to criticize." and "Christians are the last group it's OK to criticize." The same complaint is often made by fat people and ugly people and stupid people and smokers and blonds and atheists and agnostics and...it's an endless list. Everyone is under the mistaken impression that their group is the only one being criticized. I hate to break it to you, but your persecution complex is unjustified.
I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right.
I'd like to know that too, because as far as I can tell, it hasn't happened. The "art" display "Sensations" in NYC is a good example - it was lambasted from every possible angle, and the media covered the complaints pretty well. You're no where near silenced - your exact opinion and complaints received wide media coverage. And your comment here was even given a +2 rating, giving it more prominence, especially for those of us who filter.
Your voice has been heard, and will continue to be heard. The voices of those who feel the same are also being heard, and will continue to be heard. Any persecution or censorship you think you're experiencing is purely imaginary.
The thing is, most people seem to have little problem with ripping MP3's in the first place - the internet community [forgive my use of that term] is pissed off at the recording industry already for trying to take away their "rights" by cracking down on MP3's and pushing secure formats.
That's not why most people are pissed at the recording industry. Most people who hate the record companies don't even know what an MP3 is. They hate the recording industry because they love their musicians dearly, and know that the recording industry has been ripping off both the artists and the music buying public since Edison recorded "Mary Had a Little Lamb."
This kid deserves whatever he gets.
So if he gets, say, five years in jail for a link he deserves it? Some sense of justice you have there.
Ripped MP3's are illegal. Period. If I had a link on my page that lead directly do a download of Photoshop or Win 98, I would be totally not surprised if Microsoft and the FBI came knocking on my door.
So is "directly download" where you draw the line? How about a link just to a page full of wares? What's the difference? And if it's OK to go after that, why not a link to a page that advocates any illegal activity?
Here's a simple tactic no one has suggested yet: send them a bill. Just create an invoice and bill them for non-exclusive rights to your article. Don't make it for an outrageous amount, but make it for more than they would have had to pay if they hadn't ripped you off. $150 sounds about right.
They just may decide it's cheap insurance against a lawsuit, and you'll get something for your troubles.