Well yes, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical case where she had downloaded whatever the RIAA accuses her of. If she had done these things, and a college kid from Ohio had also done the exact same things, would you expect them to be treated equally?
2. Yes.
Yes, you believe that the RIAA should not have prosecuted her, even if they honestly believe her to be guilty? I would be shocked to hear a lawyer say that in court (though I have never been in court - perhaps there are many more things I would be shocked by). Surely you're arguing that she should be exempt from prosecution, due to an unrelated illness! Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this, but please be clear. Your posts imply that you think her affliction with MS is a relevant fact of the case. I heartily agree that due to her circumstances she is more deserving than most of compassion and aid. I agree that if the RIAA are knowingly bringing a false suit against her, they have sunk to a new level of evil. I agree that this particular case, of all the deserving cases you could take, is probably the most deserving. I have two direct questions for you:
1) Do you believe that Ms Schwartz's actions should be tried against a different standard than, say, a college kid from Ohio?
2) Do you believe that the RIAA should not have prosecuted the case even if they honestly believe her to be guilty?
I'm sorry to ask these questions, but your posts are strangely ambiguous and I would find it noteworthy if you subscribed to either of the beliefs above.
Hey, thanks a lot. I had never heard of those guys before, but you're right, they seem to share the same opinion as me.
With regard to big government meddling, I wouldn't be surprised to find that both positions were correct. The Pigovians could be correct that a (properly implemented) petrol tax would ease peak oil problems, and the objectors could also be correct that big government would use a petrol tax to forward their nefarious agenda of the moment (rewarding campaign contributors with tax breaks would be a good guess - which would also negate some benefits of the tax). I'm not well enough informed to say whether this is actually the case, but it's the kind of thing that makes for great TV because the two sides aren't arguing about the same thing.
Ah, that's it then. I'm usually on the side that says that the interests of the market aren't necessarily the interests of the public. But now we're arguing about state intervention versus the invisible hand of the market, not whether oil reserves are peaking.
I'm sorry for my snide tone before. The internet has plenty of arseholes without me joining in, and I deserved the same in response.
For what it's worth, I would support taxing fossil fuels to fund renewable energy research. Increasing the cost-to-use will encourage the market to develop alternatives (faster than they would otherwise; I agree with you that there is an incentive anyway, but I worry that the magnitude of the incentive may not be great enough). Taxation for research can be justified any number of ways, but one of my favourites is as national security. How much is it worth to the DoD for the country not to rely on foreign energy sources?
Anyhow, one thing the internet has taught me is that Americans always bitch and moan about taxation. I used to think that they were being unreasonable, but the more I hear about the Federal government the more I agree. Why would anyone want to be taxed when taxation and spending are unrelated? When spending is on pork-barrel projects in the next state over? Maybe fuel tax -> research would work as a state initiative. I understand California goes for that kind of thing.
a) That is only true if you use oil to run the pumps. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro, Nuclear power are all viable options. Or even, *gasp*, coal and natural gas! b) People are tricksy things - some of them will find ways to clear the oil of the wells more efficiently.
You do realise, I hope, that preparing for peak oil consists of making sure that those two things happen rather than crossing your fingers and hoping. Which side were you arguing on again?
It's been a while since I read the * Mars books, but one of my favourite bits was the colony at low point (might be what you were talking about). Since it was at the lowest point, it was the first to have a decent atmospheric pressure when they started terraforming. Hooray!
Then, whey they terraformed in some seas, it was right a the bottom of the deepest one...
I agree with you completely. Electronic voting as implemented is such a crappy idea that it's hard to believe that the elections weren't rigged. And yet, the Republicans still lost! If the elections really weren't rigged this time, then they will be next time, or the time after... Given how simple it seems to be, why would you choose to not rig the elections?
Honest question: how do you statistically tell the difference between the anomaly of a teacher cooking the grades, and the anomaly of a teacher raising crappy grades through effort and diligence?
In defence of New Zealanders, the summary is the usual misleading Slashdot tripe.
The rule of thumb for nationally recognised exams is that you should only be marked on the subject being tested. In my day, this meant that you wouldn't be marked down for poor handwriting or spelling as long as your meaning was clear. Failure in communication is its own punishment since it makes the message (which is what is being marked) less clear. As far as I know, all that happened here is that a pencil pusher somewhere wrote a memo saying that no, as much as you want to, you can't punch students in the face for using txt abbreviations.
And what kind of English major mistakes 'your' for 'you're'? Shame on you. I wouldn't normally bother nitpicking that, but since you're making an uninformed attack against our national linguistic skills...
Which of you 'tards modded that insightful? Hang your head in shame. Carbon trading is to make sure that SOMEBODY deals with the impact of emissions rather than NOBODY. It's not a difficult concept.
Ignoring non-intelligent threats absolutely was a successful survival strategy. There's no point in worrying about tsunamis and asteroids if you're a cave man and can't do anything about it. There's no return on effort spent. Your neighbour Ug who's eyeing up your mate and sharpening his axe IS worth worrying about because you can take effective action. In the modern age we can take steps to mitigate the risk from non-intelligent threats, but even so we've got millions of years of gut instinct telling us that it's not worth while because we can't do anything about it.
Look, this is trivial. All you need to do is amend the act to be called the Child On-line Protection Act For Electronic Entertainment Licensing, and remind everyone that they need to 'think of the children'. Then no politician will touch it with a 10 foot pole:)
Nothing internationally known, but if you ever get the chance check out Bad Taste(aliens) or Brain Dead(zombies), both great silly splatter/gross out movies on a low budget. Whether you consider them good or not may be a matter of taste, but they show that PJ clearly has talent and had a hell of a lot of fun making them.
Not to mention that even apart from the high chance of promiscuity, social elites that actually manage to stay exclusive (or perhaps only mix 'outwards' as with Jefferson) have trouble with recessive genes piling up after a few generations. Haemophilia and no chins, anyone?
If you really want a reaction, do that for guys too *evil grin*. YMMV depending on the local homophobia level though.
Why in God's name are sales clerks asking for your phone number anyway? Some kind of customer tracking? I'm not from America, it takes 3-5 years for crappy marketing tactics to get this far.
Slashdot Mirror
...
7. Viola.
Will this really reduce violins, or was it prompted by bass motives?
Pardon me, I didn't mean to cause a scene. I didn't think I was a hard-liner on 'equal before the eyes of the law' and all that.
Thank you for replying, and I wish you the best possible luck with the case.
1. What actions? She didn't do anything.
Well yes, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical case where she had downloaded whatever the RIAA accuses her of. If she had done these things, and a college kid from Ohio had also done the exact same things, would you expect them to be treated equally?
2. Yes.
Yes, you believe that the RIAA should not have prosecuted her, even if they honestly believe her to be guilty? I would be shocked to hear a lawyer say that in court (though I have never been in court - perhaps there are many more things I would be shocked by). Surely you're arguing that she should be exempt from prosecution, due to an unrelated illness! Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this, but please be clear. Your posts imply that you think her affliction with MS is a relevant fact of the case. I heartily agree that due to her circumstances she is more deserving than most of compassion and aid. I agree that if the RIAA are knowingly bringing a false suit against her, they have sunk to a new level of evil. I agree that this particular case, of all the deserving cases you could take, is probably the most deserving. I have two direct questions for you:
1) Do you believe that Ms Schwartz's actions should be tried against a different standard than, say, a college kid from Ohio?
2) Do you believe that the RIAA should not have prosecuted the case even if they honestly believe her to be guilty?
I'm sorry to ask these questions, but your posts are strangely ambiguous and I would find it noteworthy if you subscribed to either of the beliefs above.
Hey, thanks a lot. I had never heard of those guys before, but you're right, they seem to share the same opinion as me.
With regard to big government meddling, I wouldn't be surprised to find that both positions were correct. The Pigovians could be correct that a (properly implemented) petrol tax would ease peak oil problems, and the objectors could also be correct that big government would use a petrol tax to forward their nefarious agenda of the moment (rewarding campaign contributors with tax breaks would be a good guess - which would also negate some benefits of the tax). I'm not well enough informed to say whether this is actually the case, but it's the kind of thing that makes for great TV because the two sides aren't arguing about the same thing.
Ah, that's it then. I'm usually on the side that says that the interests of the market aren't necessarily the interests of the public. But now we're arguing about state intervention versus the invisible hand of the market, not whether oil reserves are peaking.
I'm sorry for my snide tone before. The internet has plenty of arseholes without me joining in, and I deserved the same in response.
For what it's worth, I would support taxing fossil fuels to fund renewable energy research. Increasing the cost-to-use will encourage the market to develop alternatives (faster than they would otherwise; I agree with you that there is an incentive anyway, but I worry that the magnitude of the incentive may not be great enough). Taxation for research can be justified any number of ways, but one of my favourites is as national security. How much is it worth to the DoD for the country not to rely on foreign energy sources?
Anyhow, one thing the internet has taught me is that Americans always bitch and moan about taxation. I used to think that they were being unreasonable, but the more I hear about the Federal government the more I agree. Why would anyone want to be taxed when taxation and spending are unrelated? When spending is on pork-barrel projects in the next state over? Maybe fuel tax -> research would work as a state initiative. I understand California goes for that kind of thing.
You do realise, I hope, that preparing for peak oil consists of making sure that those two things happen rather than crossing your fingers and hoping. Which side were you arguing on again?
So what? Since when did TV shows choose well reasoned, insightful discussion over flamebait and trolls?
>> In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio (which is an awesome kit) that runs under Linux/BSD
> No you wouldn't. You'd see software written for the platform that had the best chance of a high return on investment.
No, you wouldn't. You'd see software ported to EVERY platform where the return on investment made it worth while.
It's been a while since I read the * Mars books, but one of my favourite bits was the colony at low point (might be what you were talking about). Since it was at the lowest point, it was the first to have a decent atmospheric pressure when they started terraforming. Hooray!
Then, whey they terraformed in some seas, it was right a the bottom of the deepest one...
I agree with you completely. Electronic voting as implemented is such a crappy idea that it's hard to believe that the elections weren't rigged. And yet, the Republicans still lost! If the elections really weren't rigged this time, then they will be next time, or the time after... Given how simple it seems to be, why would you choose to not rig the elections?
Honest question: how do you statistically tell the difference between the anomaly of a teacher cooking the grades, and the anomaly of a teacher raising crappy grades through effort and diligence?
In defence of New Zealanders, the summary is the usual misleading Slashdot tripe.
The rule of thumb for nationally recognised exams is that you should only be marked on the subject being tested. In my day, this meant that you wouldn't be marked down for poor handwriting or spelling as long as your meaning was clear. Failure in communication is its own punishment since it makes the message (which is what is being marked) less clear. As far as I know, all that happened here is that a pencil pusher somewhere wrote a memo saying that no, as much as you want to, you can't punch students in the face for using txt abbreviations.
And what kind of English major mistakes 'your' for 'you're'? Shame on you. I wouldn't normally bother nitpicking that, but since you're making an uninformed attack against our national linguistic skills...
Which of you 'tards modded that insightful? Hang your head in shame. Carbon trading is to make sure that SOMEBODY deals with the impact of emissions rather than NOBODY. It's not a difficult concept.
Ignoring non-intelligent threats absolutely was a successful survival strategy. There's no point in worrying about tsunamis and asteroids if you're a cave man and can't do anything about it. There's no return on effort spent. Your neighbour Ug who's eyeing up your mate and sharpening his axe IS worth worrying about because you can take effective action. In the modern age we can take steps to mitigate the risk from non-intelligent threats, but even so we've got millions of years of gut instinct telling us that it's not worth while because we can't do anything about it.
Look, this is trivial. All you need to do is amend the act to be called the Child On-line Protection Act For Electronic Entertainment Licensing, and remind everyone that they need to 'think of the children'. Then no politician will touch it with a 10 foot pole :)
Nothing internationally known, but if you ever get the chance check out Bad Taste(aliens) or Brain Dead(zombies), both great silly splatter/gross out movies on a low budget. Whether you consider them good or not may be a matter of taste, but they show that PJ clearly has talent and had a hell of a lot of fun making them.
ABRAHAM: Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
* It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a Montague
Nice try, doofus, but that's clearly photoshopped.
The marketing group controls Microsoft now...
;)
Oh, great. Now you've got me thinking of the marketing department as the head crabs from halflife
Not to mention that even apart from the high chance of promiscuity, social elites that actually manage to stay exclusive (or perhaps only mix 'outwards' as with Jefferson) have trouble with recessive genes piling up after a few generations. Haemophilia and no chins, anyone?
If you really want a reaction, do that for guys too *evil grin*. YMMV depending on the local homophobia level though.
Why in God's name are sales clerks asking for your phone number anyway? Some kind of customer tracking? I'm not from America, it takes 3-5 years for crappy marketing tactics to get this far.
...Snakes on a Hyperplane!
<HawkingVoice>Who let these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking hyperplane?</HawkingVoice>
"The Americans say they can wreck a nice beach... is that some kind of threat?"
Violence is not the way! Think of the hazard caused by discarded shells!