Because they shouldn't be acting as an agent of any artist who hasn't given them that authority. If they're going to put any restriction on the broadcaster that's using them for licensing members' work, the restriction should be "You can't broadcast non-members' music", not "You pay us for non-members' work, and we'll just hold onto the money until they come around and make a deal with us."
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody --/anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
It's not so much that there would be hordes of people lined up on day 1 after legalization; rather, it would make those drugs even easier to accept as something to experiment with, and you do risk a higher number of people on average being addicted to it at an earlier age. If you're going to support legalization, you have to be ready to admit it can result in more use, abuse, and addiction.
You're arguing about the validity of the basis for the law, whereas the OP appeared to be arguing about enforcement. I was merely commenting that there is no "right to privacy" that prevents the enforcement of a law within someone's private residence.
Just because you're not doing something in public, doesn't mean that you are allowed to do it and covered by a "right to privacy". It just means that the government has to go through the right process to gain access to that non-public location.
As a convenient example, people often commit rape and homicide in their own homes. The government doesn't get to peek in on a regular basis, but if they suspect something is up, they can obtain a warrant to search.
(No, I'm not saying smoking a joint is the same level of severity as rape or murder. These are just some of the more convenient examples I find when trying to explain that there's no constitutional "right to privacy", at least not in the sense that you seem to describe. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. You do not have the right to keep the police out when there is sufficient evidence to suspect a crime.)
Re:Shocked at the negative comments
on
Spamming Google Maps
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well, except it wasn't their own land. From the write-up, it sounds like they were in a public park (and almost got kicked out, but for a park ranger who decided to let it slide). So anyone looking up a map to that park gets to see their ad.
5) Seller has been burned by negative feedback for "item never received" (or is just paranoid) and wants to ship with tracking to prove the item got sent.
1. It wouldn't be a few hundred or a few thousand embryos used for research. If embryonic stem cell research was the norm, and was supplied by donated embryos, why wouldn't it be in the hundreds of thousands? (How many are held in storage now as a result of fertility treatments?)
2. The research would not result in a tangible benefit for 6 billion people. If it developed a cure for one disease, that would be applicable to the subset of the population suffering from that disease.
3. The contents of your body could be used to assist several others who are suffering. Let's see: corneas, kidneys (2), liver, heart, blood... I'm sure we could find at least 10 people, maybe more, whose lives would be improved by taking advantage of your bodily resources. Would that justify the taking of your life for that purpose? Or does that only apply if you're not in the phone book? (Oooh, let's start with the homeless, then, hmm?)
Is there any brand of CFL, yet, with a narrower base so it'll fit into a smaller-base fixture? I have floor lamps & ceiling fixtures that simply won't fit the CFL bulb because of the wide base (and they get wider as you go to higher wattages) - are they ever going to be closer to "normal" sizes?
I've also found that in the lamps where I did manage to fit a CFL, the coiled bulbs tend to stick out because they're taller than the traditional equivalents. Now, is someone going to make a more conforming energy-efficient bulb, or do I also have to replace all my lamps & fixtures in order to use CFLs?
I thought it odd that they have a few too many similar icons -
Circle+X in a circle = Home / kid splat
X in a circle = Close/end task
X-with-arrows in a circle = Move
I din't like having to depend on mouseovers to figure out which symbol I'm looking at each time... maybe they've addressed this with consistent placement (the "close task" circle always in a predictable location?) but it still seems a bit overloaded as a result of the simplified icons.
I fully support the right of anyone to operate a motor vehicle provided they hold a valid license, obtained by passing the standard tests: complete a written test about road rules and traffic signs, correctly read the letters on the eye chart as prompted by the DMV examiner, and complete an on-road test without the aid of any other person or device. I believe some specialized cars are allowed to be used for the test, e.g. those which allow acceleration & braking via hands for paraplegics and amputees. If a day comes when a specialized vehicle is suitable for the blind to pass these tests, they should be allowed to drive (with the appropriate restrictions on which vehicles are permitted).
Likewise, I fully support the right of anyone to operate a firearm provided they meet the qualifications - which generally, if I'm not mistaken, is (1) haven't been disallowed ownership due to a prior felony and (2) don't harm any other person or property except in self-defense. There is no physical exam required for owning or operating a firearm. Why should there be?
Re:Al's greatest work
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
That's an old, old palindrome. (I heard it 10+ years ago from my dad; these things seem to survive a long time in the geek realm.)
I'm not sure I ever heard "Lisa Bonet ate no basil" prior to that song, though:-P
If you think that a few hundred thousand dollars (or even 7 million) is all it takes to "cure world hunger" you really shouldn't be questioning anyone else's sense of proportion.
They're measuring the number of clicks because that's how they're being charged. If they were paying a flat fee for placing an ad, they wouldn't care so much about how many uninterested people clicked on it and would measure the effectiveness of the ad based on increased sales (though they might scratch their heads at a high click-through rate with low conversion). When they're paying for every visitor that clicks, they aren't so thrilled about the cost of people who click on it to earn themselves some ad revenue.
These aren't people taking a peek at the product and deciding not to buy. (That would mean the ad or linked site's marketing was at fault.) These are people taking payment for customer traffic, and then delivering fake customer traffic.
Yeah, but... have you seen how many items get put on a ballot these days? You're never just casting a vote for President. You're also electing a Vice President, a Senator, a local judge, a couple city officials, and deciding on some list of proposed new taxes/bonds/ordinances.
What then? Different piece of paper for each office or issue? Mini-leaflet for essay answers? Our 85-year-olds might have a little more diffifulty tallying all of those within a few hours. Yes, there's hand-counting when it's close, but that's usually only counting one of the many sections on the same ballot.
Can I get this answered for other media as well, including DVDs?:)
The biggest issue I've had so far with the "fair use" argument is that the way it's presented by the typical Slashdotter doesn't match up to what I found in a (brief) investigation of copyright law online. "Fair use" appears to be an exemption that allows copying protected works in fairly specific scenarios, e.g. a public or school library making a backup or replacement. To what extent does the typical home consumer have a "fair use" right to copy protected (legally obtained) works to various media (to digital, to burnable CD or DVD, etc.)?
It should be stated in bold at the top of student finance applications that come or all of the information submitted is subject to possible FBI search.
You mean the ssame way it's printed in bold on a 1040 EZ form [PDF]? Or on a driver's license application? Or a passport application?
What part of "Federal" do you think people would fail to understand?
"Trawl" might still be the more appropriate term in this context. When fishing, "trolling" is a method to entice your prey to come to your hook. "Trawling" scrapes the bottom & upturns everything, and then you filter out the items you want to keep & toss the rest back, possibly the worse for wear.
D'oh, teach me to RTFA. But would have helped if your wording indicated the amendment was not properly ratified - I read it instead as meaning "the content of the amendment is unconstitutional".
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, you misunderstood - technical incompetence is associated with being a mother of a technophile. They're never savvy enough to keep up. :-P
Because they shouldn't be acting as an agent of any artist who hasn't given them that authority. If they're going to put any restriction on the broadcaster that's using them for licensing members' work, the restriction should be "You can't broadcast non-members' music", not "You pay us for non-members' work, and we'll just hold onto the money until they come around and make a deal with us."
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody -- /anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
It's not so much that there would be hordes of people lined up on day 1 after legalization; rather, it would make those drugs even easier to accept as something to experiment with, and you do risk a higher number of people on average being addicted to it at an earlier age. If you're going to support legalization, you have to be ready to admit it can result in more use, abuse, and addiction.
You're arguing about the validity of the basis for the law, whereas the OP appeared to be arguing about enforcement. I was merely commenting that there is no "right to privacy" that prevents the enforcement of a law within someone's private residence.
Just because you're not doing something in public, doesn't mean that you are allowed to do it and covered by a "right to privacy". It just means that the government has to go through the right process to gain access to that non-public location.
As a convenient example, people often commit rape and homicide in their own homes. The government doesn't get to peek in on a regular basis, but if they suspect something is up, they can obtain a warrant to search.
(No, I'm not saying smoking a joint is the same level of severity as rape or murder. These are just some of the more convenient examples I find when trying to explain that there's no constitutional "right to privacy", at least not in the sense that you seem to describe. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. You do not have the right to keep the police out when there is sufficient evidence to suspect a crime.)
Well, except it wasn't their own land. From the write-up, it sounds like they were in a public park (and almost got kicked out, but for a park ranger who decided to let it slide). So anyone looking up a map to that park gets to see their ad.
5) Seller has been burned by negative feedback for "item never received" (or is just paranoid) and wants to ship with tracking to prove the item got sent.
Be realistic.
... I'm sure we could find at least 10 people, maybe more, whose lives would be improved by taking advantage of your bodily resources. Would that justify the taking of your life for that purpose? Or does that only apply if you're not in the phone book? (Oooh, let's start with the homeless, then, hmm?)
1. It wouldn't be a few hundred or a few thousand embryos used for research. If embryonic stem cell research was the norm, and was supplied by donated embryos, why wouldn't it be in the hundreds of thousands? (How many are held in storage now as a result of fertility treatments?)
2. The research would not result in a tangible benefit for 6 billion people. If it developed a cure for one disease, that would be applicable to the subset of the population suffering from that disease.
3. The contents of your body could be used to assist several others who are suffering. Let's see: corneas, kidneys (2), liver, heart, blood
Is there any brand of CFL, yet, with a narrower base so it'll fit into a smaller-base fixture? I have floor lamps & ceiling fixtures that simply won't fit the CFL bulb because of the wide base (and they get wider as you go to higher wattages) - are they ever going to be closer to "normal" sizes?
I've also found that in the lamps where I did manage to fit a CFL, the coiled bulbs tend to stick out because they're taller than the traditional equivalents. Now, is someone going to make a more conforming energy-efficient bulb, or do I also have to replace all my lamps & fixtures in order to use CFLs?
I thought it odd that they have a few too many similar icons -
... maybe they've addressed this with consistent placement (the "close task" circle always in a predictable location?) but it still seems a bit overloaded as a result of the simplified icons.
Circle+X in a circle = Home / kid splat
X in a circle = Close/end task
X-with-arrows in a circle = Move
I din't like having to depend on mouseovers to figure out which symbol I'm looking at each time
I fully support the right of anyone to operate a motor vehicle provided they hold a valid license, obtained by passing the standard tests: complete a written test about road rules and traffic signs, correctly read the letters on the eye chart as prompted by the DMV examiner, and complete an on-road test without the aid of any other person or device. I believe some specialized cars are allowed to be used for the test, e.g. those which allow acceleration & braking via hands for paraplegics and amputees. If a day comes when a specialized vehicle is suitable for the blind to pass these tests, they should be allowed to drive (with the appropriate restrictions on which vehicles are permitted).
Likewise, I fully support the right of anyone to operate a firearm provided they meet the qualifications - which generally, if I'm not mistaken, is (1) haven't been disallowed ownership due to a prior felony and (2) don't harm any other person or property except in self-defense. There is no physical exam required for owning or operating a firearm. Why should there be?
That's an old, old palindrome. (I heard it 10+ years ago from my dad; these things seem to survive a long time in the geek realm.)
:-P
I'm not sure I ever heard "Lisa Bonet ate no basil" prior to that song, though
If you think that a few hundred thousand dollars (or even 7 million) is all it takes to "cure world hunger" you really shouldn't be questioning anyone else's sense of proportion.
distribute the money evenly, with checks to every man, woman, and child.
Oh great, another government incentive for people to reproduce...
They're measuring the number of clicks because that's how they're being charged. If they were paying a flat fee for placing an ad, they wouldn't care so much about how many uninterested people clicked on it and would measure the effectiveness of the ad based on increased sales (though they might scratch their heads at a high click-through rate with low conversion). When they're paying for every visitor that clicks, they aren't so thrilled about the cost of people who click on it to earn themselves some ad revenue.
These aren't people taking a peek at the product and deciding not to buy. (That would mean the ad or linked site's marketing was at fault.) These are people taking payment for customer traffic, and then delivering fake customer traffic.
That's the lamest justification I've ever heard. You're a cheapskate, not an environmentalist.
I hope you've switched entirely to eBooks, too, since you know how those inefficiently oversized paper versions kill trees.
Aw, I thought you meant the Kobayashi Maru...
Yeah, but... have you seen how many items get put on a ballot these days? You're never just casting a vote for President. You're also electing a Vice President, a Senator, a local judge, a couple city officials, and deciding on some list of proposed new taxes/bonds/ordinances.
What then? Different piece of paper for each office or issue? Mini-leaflet for essay answers? Our 85-year-olds might have a little more diffifulty tallying all of those within a few hours. Yes, there's hand-counting when it's close, but that's usually only counting one of the many sections on the same ballot.
Can I get this answered for other media as well, including DVDs? :)
The biggest issue I've had so far with the "fair use" argument is that the way it's presented by the typical Slashdotter doesn't match up to what I found in a (brief) investigation of copyright law online. "Fair use" appears to be an exemption that allows copying protected works in fairly specific scenarios, e.g. a public or school library making a backup or replacement. To what extent does the typical home consumer have a "fair use" right to copy protected (legally obtained) works to various media (to digital, to burnable CD or DVD, etc.)?
It should be stated in bold at the top of student finance applications that come or all of the information submitted is subject to possible FBI search.
You mean the ssame way it's printed in bold on a 1040 EZ form [PDF]? Or on a driver's license application? Or a passport application?
What part of "Federal" do you think people would fail to understand?
"Trawl" might still be the more appropriate term in this context. When fishing, "trolling" is a method to entice your prey to come to your hook. "Trawling" scrapes the bottom & upturns everything, and then you filter out the items you want to keep & toss the rest back, possibly the worse for wear.
Now how will I cheat?
D'oh, teach me to RTFA. But would have helped if your wording indicated the amendment was not properly ratified - I read it instead as meaning "the content of the amendment is unconstitutional".
How can an amendment be unconstitutional?