Baen Publishing (Baen.com) has been offering most of their books FOR FREE on their website for years.
Here is what Eric Flint has to say about ebooks and piracy:
Baen Books is now making available â" for free â" a number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online â" no conditions, no strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached. (URLs to sites which offer the readers for these format are also listed. )
Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.
The first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.
There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!
Alles in ordnung!
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy â" while it is definitely illegal and immoral â" is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market â" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people â" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors â" how about you, Eric? â" were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.
The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And â" hey, whaddaya know? â" over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!
And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.
Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, t
Reading it you will find out that some police have to qualify ONCE a year, if that. And the qualification is to hit a man sized target at 10 feet. Some departments don't even provide funds for the officers to train and qualify and they must do it on their own time and money
Certainly there are police departments where the standards are much higher. But your erroneous statement of "getting shot with your own gun" is a complete fabrication.
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange."- Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."- William Pitt
Probably because it is classed as a "Cult" and not a "Religion" due to the secretive nature of the core teachings, ceremonies, inner workings, etc, etc.
Oh and the fact that the "founder" pretty much straight up acknowledges that he made up the fictitious "religion" *cough*Cult*cough* to sell books and make money.
I'm not going to go much further on this because if the distinction between causation and correlation is not readily apparent, then no argument on my part will ever pierce the veil of ignorance that is being shown.
The well regulated militia clause is an independent clause.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not an independent clause. It's dependent. This is easily observable by the lack of a verb.
The meaning of the amendment would not be changed by its removal. The clause is a preamble, explaining the reasoning behind the amendment, not restricting it.
Err... that requires more than an assertion.
Arguing over the 2A is kind of funny, considering there is so much documentation about its inception in the federalist papers and from the federalist convention.
As it was originally written by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was however ratified to its current version because it was feared that the ability to decide who could and could not be eligible for the militia was deemed too much power in the hands of the federal government. Also "free country" was amended to "state" to allow for more state independence.
Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.
Nor did you read the actual article:
According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.
Regardless of any indemnification on Christi's part on their website, by stating publicly that you stand behind the authenticity, they are de-facto guaranteeing the authenticity.
Oh I know! Why don't we throw 1/3rd of the world population into jail!!!!
Or maybe, just maybe, the IP laws as they stand now are not sufficient to meet the demand of the populace in what and how they expect content to be transfered/delivered/received.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- Colonial America sympathesizer William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
"Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - ancient Roman educator Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi
No, they'd lose money if they sold it at $10 EVERYWHERE. They make maybe $2-3 per copy sold in Russia... almost not even worth the effort. If they only made $2-3/copy sold everywhere, they'd need to sell 15-20 million units just to break even. That would be an astouding number of sales for ANY game, and unachievable, even for Valve. If it was "amost not even worth the effort" it wouldn't be done. And $2-$3 profit on something that costs $2-$3 to manufacture (in america, I bet it would be cheaper in 3rd world countries) is 100% profit.
By your logic, they should either sell it at $10 everywhere and lose massive amounts of money (i.e, they get screwed), or not sell it in markets where they have to mark it down to make it affordable (customers in those markets get screwed). They are not "losing massive amounts of money" by selling at $10, else they would not be selling it at $10. The only things sold as a "loss" are "loss leaders". Things that go on special a lot at grocery stores, video game consoles such as the xbox and crappy sports accessories. Valve has no need of "loss leaders" and in the PC gaming market there isn't much sense for loss leaders as a business model outside of actual retail establishments (gamestop, brick and mortar stores, etc.)
God forbid your sense of entitlement be trampled on by a company wanting to both make money by offering you a great product for a good price, and to only make a tiny profit offering that same great value to others who can barely afford it. Whoops! There goes a little ad hominen! Obviously *I* have a "sense of entitlement" *rolls eyes* considering I purchased it from vavle themselves via steam because I wanted to support valve despite knowing I could get it at a reduced price from another country.
Your basic position is that not making A LOT of profit and instead making LESS THAN A LOT of profit is the equivalent of "losing money."
Never mind the fact that by regionally isolating a product you can bypass normal Supply & Demand dynamic.
The problem is, that apparently to Valve, the product is worth $10 USD in wherever, but some how $50 USD in the US.
By selling the product at $10USD in a foreign market, it is shown that the product still generates profit (or they wouldn't sell it that low).
So the issue becomes that of "How much can they rape the local market for?"
Violating Regional Licensing or whatever cannot possibly "hurt" a company, if the company would lose money selling it in the US at $10 a copy, there is no way they are going to sell it for $10 a copy in Russia. At worst the company won't make as much profit as they want. Either way they still make some profit.
I just called apple customer relations and left a complaint. (408.996.1010)
My general complaint stated that while what apple did is not illegal and does not violate any warranties. That because of their policy, and the way they market the iphone, I and a large consumer base are very unhappy with apple.
I also gave the following example: when I buy an apple computer, I want to be able to install the programs that I want, and use the internet service provider that I want. What apple has done with the iphone is tell me I cannot install my own programs, and I have to use their internet service provider. Why would I ever buy a computer that I could not install programs on and I had no choice in what internet service provider I wanted?
I wouldn't. No one who did anything beyond basic internet browsing and email would by a computer limited like that.
And that is exactly how it is with the iphone.
When you do call, please be polite. The lady on the phone was very nice, and very polite. We all like the iphone. and we all see the potential it has. We have to convince the marketing wonks that we are a serious demographic and that they want to appease us. Being verbally abusive will not accomplish that goal.
find anything in the Act which says anything similar to your "understanding." Pointing to some web site which has some incorrect, self-serving interpretation (there are lots of 'em) doesn't count. Like I said, a manufacturer can, as long as it is clearly spelled out in the warranty terms, void the entire warranty on a car if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror. It is the market, not the law, which serves to prevent them from doing so in actual practice.
It all depends upon exactly what Apple says in the warranty terms. If they say "this warranty is void if any unauthorized modifications are made to the product," then that is the case. It makes no difference if a problem was caused by the modification, or not. How about the actual Magnasun-Moss Warranty Act itself?
15 U.S.C. 2302 Secton C (of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) says:
(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.
According to the Wikipedia Entry on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act)
Requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Act provides that any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty must disclose, fully and conspicuously, in simple and readily understood language, the terms and conditions of the warranty to the extent required by rules of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has enacted regulations governing the disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions on consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $15. The Rules can be found at 16 C.F.R. Part 700.
Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty.
Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.
Full Warranty Requirements Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor:
* must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge;
* may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;
* may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
* if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair.
Under 15 U.S.C. 2302 Secton C (of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) says:
(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
This story is F.U.D.
No sources cited. No actual names of the scientists conducting the study. Instead every psych/neuro whatever guy was clearly labeled as "not connected to the study". Why are are no statements from the people conducting the study and instead 3rd parties "not connected to the study?"
Why aren't the guys running the study named?
Further look at the test being done. It was character recognition and response. It had nothing to do with intelligence.
To sum it up this article lacks
1.) Sources
2.) Test Group
3.) Test parameters
4.) Hypothesis of people conducting study
Anyone who believes this article is one that is easily swayed by false propaganda and I feel personally should not be granted the civic responsibility of voting. If you are too naive to be swayed by such an article as this you are a danger to the country when voting.
In relation to "Shopkeeper's Privilege" which in most states falls under Common Law:
Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):
Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.
Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.
Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.
Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.
If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".
Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)
You'll note in Dudley Hiibel vs. Nevada that they reference a previous case, Kolender vs. Lawson ( KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)461 U.S. 352).
Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"
Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)
In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.
PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.
In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . .." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]
...
We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
...
In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4
"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.
No, they are arresting him for driving 150 miles with condoms and beer to have sex in a house with a child. They are arresting him for telling someone he thinks is a child that he'd like to fuck her. They are arresting him for sending the child pictures of himself naked. That's called intent.
Telling someone you would "like" to do something to them, and telling someone you "are" going to do something to them is quite a difference. In order for the latter to be considered a credible threat/intent, there has to be immanency of the threat, that is specific contingencies for the threat to be enacted or a definitive time from in which the threat is going to occur. In the former case saying "I'd like to XXX" does not convey any immanency. Sending naked pictures to someone, particularly a minor does in fact violent decency laws but is only a misdemeanor. And I don't see how this is relevant since you never mentioned naked pictures being sent to a minor until now.
There is no entrapment here, except maybe in your head.
Someone pretending to be something other than what they are in the guise of enticing someone to commit a crime is entrapment. However if someone posing in a false guise does not entice said person, then the acts are completely voluntary on the suspects part and it is not entrapment.
Wow. If you don't understand what the actual offense is in this case, why are you arguing about it?
What is the actual offense? Planning to have sex with a minor? Intent to have sex with a minor? Does that mean that when you see some girl walking down the street who gives you a hard-on, if she is underage you committed the same crime? You clearly don't understand the nature of intent and "thought crime." I believe you are confusing the necessary elements for something to be a criminal act (intent) with the act itself.
A crime did take place. Soliciting a minor and crossing state lines with the intent of engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor. If you don't like the laws that govern this behavior then you need to go talk to congress. Arguing that a child wasn't victimized is irrelevant in the context of those laws.
Quite frankly I have a hard time believing anyone can question intent in these cases, and therefore that the individual is a menace to society. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time.
Here we go, the crux of your position and the fallacy of your logic. You are interjecting specific facts that were previously unspecified and using the unsaid specifics that did not surface until you were responding to me to discredit what I said. At what point was the discussion about crossing interstate lines? Who is soliciting who for sex? You see it is all very complicated; If the "minor" (cop/fbi agent) solicits the suspect it is not the same as if the suspect solicits the "minor". At no point in your original post that I was replying too was it mentioned that the suspect solicits the minor, or travels across interstate lines or was sending indecent pictures to underage minors. While I am aware that these acts have occurred on the Dateline show in the specific context of the post of yours that I rebutted too, no such facts were present. Given that you are drawing conclusions from non-social stimuli.
What you fail to understand is that I agree with the general position you are taking; that "as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time."
However I was attempting to point out that intent alone is not a crime.
Intent is a specific condition that must be shown in order for an act to be a crime. It is not the crime but simple an element of it.
Nice job at thinly veiled attempts at ad hominen by the way.
It doesn't matter that the child is fictional if it's enough to drive an adult to do that. The law is not defending the fictional child, it's punishing the perpetrator that had the intent to harm the child. These people are not behaving that way because they figure the child does not exist.
What "child"? You say the law is not defending the child, but punishing the man for having the intent to harm a fictional entity that does not exist? There was no actual incident, and there was no victim for a crime to be perpetrated against.
Isn't that punishing people for their thoughts? i.e. "thought crime"?
It's all semantic blabber until your child is victimized, I guess. And as long as the poor pervert's constitutional rights are not being violated, I'm perfectly fine with doing whatever it takes to get him to spend a few years taking long showers with Bruno instead of trying to abuse vulnerable children.
But such a person entrapped is having his/their constitutional rights violated. In America at least, we have the right to speak, think and worship what we want. Yes there are limitations to SPEACH, but only when doing so will cause DIRECT harm to others.
This is like arresting a guy for rape if he gets a hardon by looking at a hot woman. Sure he may approach her, and hit on her, and he may want to have sex with her, but he hasn't raped her yet.
If the subjects in dateline started reaching/approaching and attempting to grope an underaged bait in THEN they could be found guilty.
That is why when cops arrest people picking up prostitutes, they do not move in UNTIL money has exchanged hands. This can be very dangerous for female cops because that means the suspect takes them back someplace and doesn't pay up front. But such is the nature of the legalities. Until a crime TAKES PLACE you cannot be guilty of thinking about committing a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is what Eric Flint has to say about ebooks and piracy:
Baen Books is now making available â" for free â" a number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online â" no conditions, no strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached. (URLs to sites which offer the readers for these format are also listed. )
Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.
The first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.
There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!
Alles in ordnung!
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy â" while it is definitely illegal and immoral â" is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market â" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people â" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors â" how about you, Eric? â" were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.
The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And â" hey, whaddaya know? â" over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!
And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.
Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, t
Can you even back up your claim that you are more likely to get shot with your own gun?
And then you claim that police are highly trained!
HAhahahaha!
Just google "how often do police have to qualify" and you will get this as the first link: http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-9835.html
Reading it you will find out that some police have to qualify ONCE a year, if that. And the qualification is to hit a man sized target at 10 feet. Some departments don't even provide funds for the officers to train and qualify and they must do it on their own time and money
Certainly there are police departments where the standards are much higher. But your erroneous statement of "getting shot with your own gun" is a complete fabrication.
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange." - Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
How is pointing out false truths and half truths that misrepresent and belie the actual facts not informative?
Oh wait... I see your last sentence...
You know, it would save you a lot of typing if you just only said "Bush lied people died"...
Probably because it is classed as a "Cult" and not a "Religion" due to the secretive nature of the core teachings, ceremonies, inner workings, etc, etc.
Oh and the fact that the "founder" pretty much straight up acknowledges that he made up the fictitious "religion" *cough*Cult*cough* to sell books and make money.
They've != I've
Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into google will explain to you pretty quickly the age range of suicide bombers.
So I believe the person whom you were responding too was making a valid observation.
If the internet "creates" pedophiles, then "spoons" make people fat.
But this assumption of causality and correlation is a classic case of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
I'm not going to go much further on this because if the distinction between causation and correlation is not readily apparent, then no argument on my part will ever pierce the veil of ignorance that is being shown.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not an independent clause. It's dependent. This is easily observable by the lack of a verb.
Err... that requires more than an assertion.
Arguing over the 2A is kind of funny, considering there is so much documentation about its inception in the federalist papers and from the federalist convention.
As it was originally written by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was however ratified to its current version because it was feared that the ability to decide who could and could not be eligible for the militia was deemed too much power in the hands of the federal government. Also "free country" was amended to "state" to allow for more state independence.
So yes, it is an independent clause.
But can you install linux on it?
Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.
Nor did you read the actual article:
According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.
Regardless of any indemnification on Christi's part on their website, by stating publicly that you stand behind the authenticity, they are de-facto guaranteeing the authenticity.
Um... all that will do is piss of a person, or kill, maybe a rat or a snake...
Oh I know! Why don't we throw 1/3rd of the world population into jail!!!!
Or maybe, just maybe, the IP laws as they stand now are not sufficient to meet the demand of the populace in what and how they expect content to be transfered/delivered/received.
They don't teach you how to "murder" people. What they teach you is team cohesiveness. I.E. working together for a common goal.
Which you won't be learning if you play by yourself.
This smacks of the Puppeteer plot line in the Masamune Shirow Manga: Ghost in the Shell.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - Colonial America sympathesizer William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
"Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - ancient Roman educator Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi
If it was "amost not even worth the effort" it wouldn't be done. And $2-$3 profit on something that costs $2-$3 to manufacture (in america, I bet it would be cheaper in 3rd world countries) is 100% profit.
By your logic, they should either sell it at $10 everywhere and lose massive amounts of money (i.e, they get screwed), or not sell it in markets where they have to mark it down to make it affordable (customers in those markets get screwed). They are not "losing massive amounts of money" by selling at $10, else they would not be selling it at $10. The only things sold as a "loss" are "loss leaders". Things that go on special a lot at grocery stores, video game consoles such as the xbox and crappy sports accessories. Valve has no need of "loss leaders" and in the PC gaming market there isn't much sense for loss leaders as a business model outside of actual retail establishments (gamestop, brick and mortar stores, etc.)
God forbid your sense of entitlement be trampled on by a company wanting to both make money by offering you a great product for a good price, and to only make a tiny profit offering that same great value to others who can barely afford it. Whoops! There goes a little ad hominen! Obviously *I* have a "sense of entitlement" *rolls eyes* considering I purchased it from vavle themselves via steam because I wanted to support valve despite knowing I could get it at a reduced price from another country.
Your basic position is that not making A LOT of profit and instead making LESS THAN A LOT of profit is the equivalent of "losing money."
Never mind the fact that by regionally isolating a product you can bypass normal Supply & Demand dynamic.
The problem is, that apparently to Valve, the product is worth $10 USD in wherever, but some how $50 USD in the US.
By selling the product at $10USD in a foreign market, it is shown that the product still generates profit (or they wouldn't sell it that low).
So the issue becomes that of "How much can they rape the local market for?"
Violating Regional Licensing or whatever cannot possibly "hurt" a company, if the company would lose money selling it in the US at $10 a copy, there is no way they are going to sell it for $10 a copy in Russia. At worst the company won't make as much profit as they want. Either way they still make some profit.
I just called apple customer relations and left a complaint. (408.996.1010)
My general complaint stated that while what apple did is not illegal and does not violate any warranties. That because of their policy, and the way they market the iphone, I and a large consumer base are very unhappy with apple.
I also gave the following example: when I buy an apple computer, I want to be able to install the programs that I want, and use the internet service provider that I want. What apple has done with the iphone is tell me I cannot install my own programs, and I have to use their internet service provider. Why would I ever buy a computer that I could not install programs on and I had no choice in what internet service provider I wanted?
I wouldn't. No one who did anything beyond basic internet browsing and email would by a computer limited like that.
And that is exactly how it is with the iphone.
When you do call, please be polite. The lady on the phone was very nice, and very polite. We all like the iphone. and we all see the potential it has. We have to convince the marketing wonks that we are a serious demographic and that they want to appease us. Being verbally abusive will not accomplish that goal.
It all depends upon exactly what Apple says in the warranty terms. If they say "this warranty is void if any unauthorized modifications are made to the product," then that is the case. It makes no difference if a problem was caused by the modification, or not. How about the actual Magnasun-Moss Warranty Act itself? 15 U.S.C. 2302 Secton C (of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) says:
(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.
Requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act
The Act provides that any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty must disclose, fully and conspicuously, in simple and readily understood language, the terms and conditions of the warranty to the extent required by rules of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has enacted regulations governing the disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions on consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $15. The Rules can be found at 16 C.F.R. Part 700.
Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty.
Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.
Full Warranty Requirements Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor: * must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge;
* may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;
* may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
* if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair.
Under 15 U.S.C. 2302 Secton C (of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) says:
(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.
This story is F.U.D.
No sources cited. No actual names of the scientists conducting the study. Instead every psych/neuro whatever guy was clearly labeled as "not connected to the study". Why are are no statements from the people conducting the study and instead 3rd parties "not connected to the study?"
Why aren't the guys running the study named?
Further look at the test being done. It was character recognition and response. It had nothing to do with intelligence.
To sum it up this article lacks
1.) Sources
2.) Test Group
3.) Test parameters
4.) Hypothesis of people conducting study
Anyone who believes this article is one that is easily swayed by false propaganda and I feel personally should not be granted the civic responsibility of voting. If you are too naive to be swayed by such an article as this you are a danger to the country when voting.
In relation to "Shopkeeper's Privilege" which in most states falls under Common Law:
Some states, such as Washington and California have codified their Common Law and incorporated them into the UCC and PC. California in particular, we have Penal Code 490.5 (f):
Penal Code 490.5 f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.
Since (in California) PC 490.5(f) is in the Penal Code section of law, the definition of "Probable Cause" falls under that of the same Penal Code.
Under PC 490.5(f) a shopkeeper must have "Probable Cause" to believe the person being detained is attempting to, or unlawfully took merchandise from the store.
Since theft is a misdemeanor, and NOT a felony, then "Probable Cause" required to arrest requires direct first hand knowledge of the act or event taking place. i.e. An agent of the store must see personally, or via CCTV the act being committed.
If the theft was a felony (grand theft), then the "Probable Cause" necessary to arrest for a felony only requires a "reasonable doubt".
Regardless, refusal to submit to a search is not grounds for probable cause for either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Fourth Amendment Rights, confirmed numerous times by the US Supreme Court.)
You'll note in Dudley Hiibel vs. Nevada that they reference a previous case, Kolender vs. Lawson ( KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)461 U.S. 352).
." Id., at 91. In addition, 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964). 8 [461 U.S. 352, 359]
Edward Lawson was "detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. 647(e) (West 1970). 2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed"
Edward Lawsons crime was being a black male in an affluent neighborhood and jogging. During these stops he did not have his drivers license on him, or did not feel the need to present his ID upon request. The police would then arrest him for either interfering with a police investigation or PC 647(e)
In particular Edward Lawson, when refusing to show ID, was charged with PC 647(e). His lawyer's contention was that PC 647(e)'s definition of "Identify" was constitutionally vague, and successfully argued his case before the California Supreme Court.
PC 647(e)
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(e) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place
without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify
himself or herself and to account for his or her presence when
requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding
circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the public
safety demands this identification.
In the Supreme Court of California the judges made the following statements and ruling:
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . .
...
We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. 10 Accordingly, the judgment of [461 U.S. 352, 362] the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
...
In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. 3 They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. 4
"Shopkeeper's Privilege" is a whole other issue too. Which was also violated and thus the protections under it to a shopkeeper for unlawful imprisonment are no longer granted.
P.S. IANAL
No, they are arresting him for driving 150 miles with condoms and beer to have sex in a house with a child. They are arresting him for telling someone he thinks is a child that he'd like to fuck her. They are arresting him for sending the child pictures of himself naked. That's called intent.
Telling someone you would "like" to do something to them, and telling someone you "are" going to do something to them is quite a difference. In order for the latter to be considered a credible threat/intent, there has to be immanency of the threat, that is specific contingencies for the threat to be enacted or a definitive time from in which the threat is going to occur. In the former case saying "I'd like to XXX" does not convey any immanency. Sending naked pictures to someone, particularly a minor does in fact violent decency laws but is only a misdemeanor. And I don't see how this is relevant since you never mentioned naked pictures being sent to a minor until now.
There is no entrapment here, except maybe in your head.
Someone pretending to be something other than what they are in the guise of enticing someone to commit a crime is entrapment. However if someone posing in a false guise does not entice said person, then the acts are completely voluntary on the suspects part and it is not entrapment.
Wow. If you don't understand what the actual offense is in this case, why are you arguing about it?
What is the actual offense? Planning to have sex with a minor? Intent to have sex with a minor? Does that mean that when you see some girl walking down the street who gives you a hard-on, if she is underage you committed the same crime? You clearly don't understand the nature of intent and "thought crime." I believe you are confusing the necessary elements for something to be a criminal act (intent) with the act itself.
A crime did take place. Soliciting a minor and crossing state lines with the intent of engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor. If you don't like the laws that govern this behavior then you need to go talk to congress. Arguing that a child wasn't victimized is irrelevant in the context of those laws. Quite frankly I have a hard time believing anyone can question intent in these cases, and therefore that the individual is a menace to society. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time.
Here we go, the crux of your position and the fallacy of your logic. You are interjecting specific facts that were previously unspecified and using the unsaid specifics that did not surface until you were responding to me to discredit what I said. At what point was the discussion about crossing interstate lines? Who is soliciting who for sex? You see it is all very complicated; If the "minor" (cop/fbi agent) solicits the suspect it is not the same as if the suspect solicits the "minor". At no point in your original post that I was replying too was it mentioned that the suspect solicits the minor, or travels across interstate lines or was sending indecent pictures to underage minors. While I am aware that these acts have occurred on the Dateline show in the specific context of the post of yours that I rebutted too, no such facts were present. Given that you are drawing conclusions from non-social stimuli.
What you fail to understand is that I agree with the general position you are taking; that "as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time."
However I was attempting to point out that intent alone is not a crime.
Intent is a specific condition that must be shown in order for an act to be a crime. It is not the crime but simple an element of it.
Nice job at thinly veiled attempts at ad hominen by the way.
It doesn't matter that the child is fictional if it's enough to drive an adult to do that. The law is not defending the fictional child, it's punishing the perpetrator that had the intent to harm the child. These people are not behaving that way because they figure the child does not exist.
What "child"? You say the law is not defending the child, but punishing the man for having the intent to harm a fictional entity that does not exist? There was no actual incident, and there was no victim for a crime to be perpetrated against.
Isn't that punishing people for their thoughts? i.e. "thought crime"?
It's all semantic blabber until your child is victimized, I guess. And as long as the poor pervert's constitutional rights are not being violated, I'm perfectly fine with doing whatever it takes to get him to spend a few years taking long showers with Bruno instead of trying to abuse vulnerable children.
But such a person entrapped is having his/their constitutional rights violated. In America at least, we have the right to speak, think and worship what we want. Yes there are limitations to SPEACH, but only when doing so will cause DIRECT harm to others.
This is like arresting a guy for rape if he gets a hardon by looking at a hot woman. Sure he may approach her, and hit on her, and he may want to have sex with her, but he hasn't raped her yet.
If the subjects in dateline started reaching/approaching and attempting to grope an underaged bait in THEN they could be found guilty.
That is why when cops arrest people picking up prostitutes, they do not move in UNTIL money has exchanged hands. This can be very dangerous for female cops because that means the suspect takes them back someplace and doesn't pay up front. But such is the nature of the legalities. Until a crime TAKES PLACE you cannot be guilty of thinking about committing a crime.