Well sure. But now they're all heard on the same station anyway - classic rock. They seem like very different artists to you because you're intimately familiar with the vagaries of the genre. They all sound like the same thing to me - old white people. And even back then, you wouldn't have heard the kind of genre-skipping that you get now on the best music blogs.
Stones, Air Supply, Eagles, AC/DC, Bob Welch, Fleetwood Mac, Starland Vocal Band, Elton John, Foghat, Rush, Doobie Bros......
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that's not exactly what I'd call a huge range of music.
I'm getting older and buying more, in fact. While the quality of mainstream music has gotten worse (I think, anyway), the quality of independent music has gotten much better AND it's all much easier to find because of the internet, music blogs, eMusic, etc. Could the decrease in CD sales for best sellers in fact be because of the long tail? I haven't bought a top-40 CD in years, but I've acquired a whole lot of music from independent artists through a slew of other (totally legal) venues.
Amen. As for the rest of you guys, well, I'm not sure why I expected a coherent discussion of this topic here . . .
I'm not an engineer, but I am a lawyer for an internet company. I had to work my a$$ off to get this job, and all along I was sidetracked by managers and bosses who thought that they couldn't give me the same work experience or mentoring opportunities because I was just going to run off and have babies some day. Even bosses who weren't overtly sexist didn't treat me the same way as male associates because we just didn't "click" the same way - no invites to drinks after work, ski trips with the family, golf outings etc. So - no mentors, no advancement. Until there are more women in professorships and management, there won't be more women in engineering schools or jobs.
It's self-perpetuating - until there's a critical mass of women in the field so that every step forward isn't a massive f*cking ordeal (which I don't think anyone can deny given the comments here), there will be few women interesting in entering the field.
And, of course, if you incorrectly identify all of 5-8 as spyware, you get the warning at the end that says - you got one wrong, now you're infected. They're taking that as an indication that X% of users will do something wrong and get spyware, but how many of that figure is people who were overly cautious in their responses?
Did you read the AABBS case?
Particularly this portion:
Subsequently, Dirmeyer used an assumed name and sent in $55 along with an executed application form to the AABBS. Defendant Robert Thomas called Dirmeyer at his undercover telephone number in Memphis, Tennessee, acknowledged receipt of his application, and authorized him to log-on with his personal password. Thereafter, Dirmeyer dialed the AABBS's telephone number, logged-on and, using his computer/modem in Memphis, downloaded the GIF files listed in counts 2-7 of the Defendants' indictments.
Thus my point about jurisdiction. Purposeful availment = some other interaction that lets you know that the person you're dealing with is coming from that community. It's pretty clearly more than just putting something on a website.
As for e-commerce, well, one case I just recently saw laying this out is ICP Solar Technologies v. TAB Consulting.
On the appellate level, how about this:
The mere fact that an entity operates a commercial,
interactive Web site does not, without more, subject that entity
to jurisdiction anywhere in the world. See Toys "R" Us, Inc. v.
Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 454 (3d Cir. 2003).
1.Community standards is only one prong of the Miller test. Here it is in its entirety:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary COMMUNITY STANDARDS, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
So, sadly, there's really no chance that Fox News is obscene.
2. Although the Supreme Court's refusing to hear this case means that the Miller test will continue to apply to the internet, there is protection from getting hauled into court anywhere in the country merely because of what you put on a website, under jurisdictional principles. You can't be hauled into court in any particular jurisdiction unless you've "purposefully availed yourself" of that jurisdiction's legal privileges and protections. And other cases, some about pornography but most about plain old e-commerce, say that just posting something on the internet isn't "purposeful availment." You have to do something in that actual location - not necessarily be there physically, but send or sell something to someone there, or some other interaction that would let you know that someone there was using your site (e.g., requiring a registration that asks for a zip code or area code). It doesn't make the Miller "community standards" test any less absurd in this day and age, but it does help a little.
Slashdot Mirror
Well sure. But now they're all heard on the same station anyway - classic rock. They seem like very different artists to you because you're intimately familiar with the vagaries of the genre. They all sound like the same thing to me - old white people. And even back then, you wouldn't have heard the kind of genre-skipping that you get now on the best music blogs.
Stones, Air Supply, Eagles, AC/DC, Bob Welch, Fleetwood Mac, Starland Vocal Band, Elton John, Foghat, Rush, Doobie Bros...... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that's not exactly what I'd call a huge range of music.
I'm getting older and buying more, in fact. While the quality of mainstream music has gotten worse (I think, anyway), the quality of independent music has gotten much better AND it's all much easier to find because of the internet, music blogs, eMusic, etc. Could the decrease in CD sales for best sellers in fact be because of the long tail? I haven't bought a top-40 CD in years, but I've acquired a whole lot of music from independent artists through a slew of other (totally legal) venues.
Amen. As for the rest of you guys, well, I'm not sure why I expected a coherent discussion of this topic here . . .
I'm not an engineer, but I am a lawyer for an internet company. I had to work my a$$ off to get this job, and all along I was sidetracked by managers and bosses who thought that they couldn't give me the same work experience or mentoring opportunities because I was just going to run off and have babies some day. Even bosses who weren't overtly sexist didn't treat me the same way as male associates because we just didn't "click" the same way - no invites to drinks after work, ski trips with the family, golf outings etc. So - no mentors, no advancement. Until there are more women in professorships and management, there won't be more women in engineering schools or jobs.
It's self-perpetuating - until there's a critical mass of women in the field so that every step forward isn't a massive f*cking ordeal (which I don't think anyone can deny given the comments here), there will be few women interesting in entering the field.
And, of course, if you incorrectly identify all of 5-8 as spyware, you get the warning at the end that says - you got one wrong, now you're infected. They're taking that as an indication that X% of users will do something wrong and get spyware, but how many of that figure is people who were overly cautious in their responses?
. . . and I'm guessing, not from many lawyers.
IAAL, so let's lay a few things out:
1.Community standards is only one prong of the Miller test. Here it is in its entirety:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary COMMUNITY STANDARDS, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
So, sadly, there's really no chance that Fox News is obscene.
2. Although the Supreme Court's refusing to hear this case means that the Miller test will continue to apply to the internet, there is protection from getting hauled into court anywhere in the country merely because of what you put on a website, under jurisdictional principles. You can't be hauled into court in any particular jurisdiction unless you've "purposefully availed yourself" of that jurisdiction's legal privileges and protections. And other cases, some about pornography but most about plain old e-commerce, say that just posting something on the internet isn't "purposeful availment." You have to do something in that actual location - not necessarily be there physically, but send or sell something to someone there, or some other interaction that would let you know that someone there was using your site (e.g., requiring a registration that asks for a zip code or area code). It doesn't make the Miller "community standards" test any less absurd in this day and age, but it does help a little.