"If you are unwilling to pay your dues to your country... please leave."
When did we stop talking about the United States of America? Clearly you are talking about some other country. People have lives, and jury duty can be a significant burden, especially if it goes on for weeks or months. Federal and most state laws prohibit employers from imposing penalties for jury duty, but people have other obligations as well, family being probably the most significant of those, although self-employment would be a significant obligation for many people as well. Most people can make arrangements before they serve on a jury, but many can't. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of laziness going around, we're all Americans after all, but compulsory service is not in keeping with the spirit of this country. I would also add that, in the country with the highest prison population (both total and per capita), perhaps we just have too many acts being criminalized, which is leading to too many prosecutions, which is resulting in too many trials, which is exhausting the supply of potential jurors. That's another matter entirely, though.
Only one Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and for similarly political reasons. He was acquitted, almost certainly because of the very political nature of the "charges" against him. I'm no Federalist, nor lover of Chase, but the impeachment power--for both Presidents and judges--was meant to be reserved for those instances where criminal actions were committed. There is good reason for that, or else every time a new party took power its first goal would be the impeachment of its predecessors, elected and appointed.
Furthermore, without even addressing the veracity of your claims, which I think are overblown to say the least, you have failed to demonstrate actual harm resulting from the "unleashing [of] foreign corporate power on US election campaigns." You are thus charging Alito (et al.) not with any substantive crime, but with the nebulous crime of sedition. While accusing one's political enemies of having foreign bedfellows is hardly a new tactic in American politics, it has always been the resort of the politically desperate.
If all the jobs that are currently done overseas were suddenly moved here, without any changes to minimum wage, occupational safety, workers' compensation, and other laws that affect the cost of an employee, then the companies would be unable to sustain themselves. Then the government would invariably step in and bail them out. So what's the difference between direct welfare payments to individuals and indirectly subsidizing their employment?
And what of the “conservative” talking heads who gleefully champion the wars that get so many soldiers killed, yet have never served a day themselves? Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori sounds quite noble if you never have to look at the results.
First, php.com is not malicious. Second, it is not squatting. The use of the domain is legitimate and unrelated to the programming language. Furthermore, according to WHOIS results for both domains, php.com was registered in 1993 and php.net in 1997. Third, a simple search on the part of any literate user will quickly return php.net as the website for the programming language.
I don't deny that php.com may have caused, and may still cause, harm to PHP. However, that harm is not intentional, and it is unreasonable to fault php.com, which is completely unrelated and predates the interests of the programming language, for causing that harm.
Just as an interesting coincidence, my economics teacher did the following:
1) Wrote up his own notes in outline form for every chapter in the book; 2) Provided the notes to every student at the beginning of the class in Word documents; 3) Not only allowed us to keep them, but encouraged us to use them in future studies in Economics--not only with different teachers but even at different institutions.
Apple's argument: Switch to Macs because they don't have the problems Windows PCs have. Microsoft's argument: Stay with Windows PCs because everybody uses them.
Apple as teenager: But I'm smarter! Microsoft as teenager: Who cares! I'm more popular!
It's the kind of thing I would never think twice about in a title or subtitle. In those contexts, abbreviation is necessary and the proper meaning can be inferred. My worry is that, in the full wording of a write-up, article, brief, dissertation, etc., people who read them and interpret them may derive a meaning that was not supported by the author or the circumstances being described. Exposure can lead to acceptance, which can lead to legislation. Then again, it will likely amount to nothing, and so getting worked up about it wasn't warranted.
I will concede that your definition is accurate (see, for example, dictionary.com), and indeed it makes sense.
My point referred to the content, and not the use of the term "e-mail." I will admit that, had I given the word "e-mail" more thought, I would have realized that the necessary precondition for the term was that it be sent.
I had not considered corsec67's counter-example, which is indeed a valid example of when the possession of information is illegal. I do not know if the existence of the information itself is illegal; child pornography may be evidence of an illegal act, but if that evidence had to be destroyed because it, too, was illegal, then that would constitute an absurd hindrance to the prosecution of possession crimes.
I would still argue that my point remains valid (modifying it to address the content of the e-mail). The write-up stated "illegal emails;" from this wording alone (paying careful attention to the part of speech), and according to the definitions I've referenced above, this refers to the message itself (which had to have been sent in order to qualify as an "e-mail", but the noun does not refer to the act of sending). Thus, the e-mail contains both the content and the evidence of its transmission (in the form of SMTP and MIME headers), neither of which by themselves are illegal. Thus, the message (and therefore the e-mail) is not illegal; the act of sending it was. The e-mail contains evidence of a crime, but its existence is not the crime.
You may not realize it, but you can still make a valid point without swearing.
The write-up states: "Prosecutors presented evidence of 53,000 illegal e-mails"
The e-mails can be sent in violation of the law and the person who sent them is an offender, but the e-mails themselves cannot be "illegal." Their mere existence does not constitute a violation of the law. If somebody said there were "illegal letters," "illegal phone calls," or "illegal documents," then it would be tantamount to saying that the government restricted the existence of information.
We live in a world where the flow of information is controlled, and indeed there are rational arguments on both sides about whether or not such restrictions constitute censorship. But the existence of information and the possession of it are not crimes. If such things were criminal, no rational mind could argue that the related laws weren't tantamount to censorship.
They are not "illegal e-mails." They are illegally sent e-mails.
Apparently, it's better to have your hands tied behind your back, having consented and become bound to legal agreements you've never read, than be presented with them up front.
"According to Eweek's Peter Galli, Microsoft sees no contradiction between its open-source community building efforts and the more-than-thinly-veiled legal threats at Linux and other projects."
More than thinly veiled? I'd say the veil was long ago taken off completely.
It's also worthy to note that these concepts, which we have learned by experience, make no sense to someone disconnected from them. What, exactly, is a web site? Well, a realistic definition of the term is more complicated than you might think. A technical definition like "the set of all web pages served by a web server" isn't accurate. A lay definition like "a connected set of pages bearing the same name" isn't accurate. The term isn't as concrete as, say, a newspaper or television network--which are still pretty fuzzy (are AP reports that are republished by newspapers "part" of a specific newspaper? what about syndication? etc.) Much better to have the man admit he doesn't understand a term that's not at all easy to truly understand than to have him nod silently.
I think one of the reasons that crazy behavior like this happens is that people hold these things--satellite navigation systems (I refuse to call them "GPSes" as I find that term highly inaccurate)--to be inerrant and smarter than people.
I was driving around in Cleveland, an unfamiliar town to me, and I had been for a couple of days. I was relatively comfortable with the area around where I was staying; I knew how to get to nearby stores and how to get on the road home. I ask one of the relatives I'm staying with how to get somewhere, and his directions are real casual, but simple enough. I'm halfway to the destination, when my passenger insists on me pulling over, calling my relatives, asking for the exact address of the location, and typing it into the navigation system for directions. I knew damn well where I was going, and sure enough the relative's directions would've gotten me there sooner and with less hassle.
My point is just that people, especially those who drive with the navigation systems normally (and I don't), become dependent on them to move along any route they haven't completely traveled before. So much so that they'll waste time and gas to do whatever the devices say, and go to the ends of the Earth--so long as the device says they're going in the right direction.
Okay, I don't care about the bitrate wars. It's sound quality that matters to me, but my only uses for lossless audio are archival and transcoding. But pursuant to that end, why the heck is everybody so heavy-set on constant bitrates? All major lossy audio formats, including MP3, AAC, WMA, and Ogg Vorbis, can encode at variable bitrates, which produce audio that can more accurately reproduce the source material for the same net file size. It just doesn't make sense!
First, I think your market numbers are skewed in Apple's favor, but I'm no expert, and they are just off-the-top-of-the-head estimates. Apple's market share is at least fifty percent, but I don't think it's as high as you say.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, is that AAC is not completely free (in the way that Ogg Vorbis is, for example). Developers of encoding and decoding software ("codecs") and the devices that use them are required to pay licensing fees to the various owners of the format (see link below). This is not much different from MP3.
Third, I certainly don't expect Apple to support WMA if there is no demand for it. But it's difficult to gauge demand for something you can't do. With the notable exclusion of CDs, if iPod owners can only use songs bought from iTunes (because the only protected format played by the iPod is AAC+FairPlay, Apple will not license FairPlay, and until May all mainstream music sold online requires DRM), then what incentive do they have to try elsewhere? The onus I mentioned is the same that lies upon all monopolies, that they should not be overly anticompetitive.
Fourth, as you rightly mentioned, MP3 is an all-around winner, because everybody can play MP3s. They could all cut their costs by just supporting MP3--the licensing fees aren't per song, and some of the companies are probably already paying them anyway. WMA and AAC support just adds additional costs. Of course, all DRM would need to be dropped for this to work as effectively as possible.
For these reasons, I feel it's likely that the various encoding schemes will hold their ground for the most part, instead of having one particular format come to dominate the market.
I think that the premise of the statement "Apple's Move May Make AAC Music Industry Standard" is absurd. While I consider a move in the right direction, the AAC format is not by any means the only format capable of storing music without DRM. In fact, a number of formats do not provide any standardized facilities for encryption and "rights management" (like MP3, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Monkey's Audio, etc.). It would seem more reasonable to me that stores already selling WMA-encoded audio with DRM will simply sell WMA-encoded audio without DRM, rather than switch to AAC, if for no other reason than their target audience already has players capable of playing WMA.
I think the onus lies on Apple, not the others, to adopt support for DRM-free WMA (and other formats) in their players.
Slashdot Mirror
You always have the option to revoke your right to a trial by jury and instead be tried by a judge.
"If you are unwilling to pay your dues to your country... please leave."
When did we stop talking about the United States of America? Clearly you are talking about some other country. People have lives, and jury duty can be a significant burden, especially if it goes on for weeks or months. Federal and most state laws prohibit employers from imposing penalties for jury duty, but people have other obligations as well, family being probably the most significant of those, although self-employment would be a significant obligation for many people as well. Most people can make arrangements before they serve on a jury, but many can't. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of laziness going around, we're all Americans after all, but compulsory service is not in keeping with the spirit of this country. I would also add that, in the country with the highest prison population (both total and per capita), perhaps we just have too many acts being criminalized, which is leading to too many prosecutions, which is resulting in too many trials, which is exhausting the supply of potential jurors. That's another matter entirely, though.
The correct English phrasing of what you are trying to say is "second-to-last year" not "second last year."
Only one Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and for similarly political reasons. He was acquitted, almost certainly because of the very political nature of the "charges" against him. I'm no Federalist, nor lover of Chase, but the impeachment power--for both Presidents and judges--was meant to be reserved for those instances where criminal actions were committed. There is good reason for that, or else every time a new party took power its first goal would be the impeachment of its predecessors, elected and appointed.
Furthermore, without even addressing the veracity of your claims, which I think are overblown to say the least, you have failed to demonstrate actual harm resulting from the "unleashing [of] foreign corporate power on US election campaigns." You are thus charging Alito (et al.) not with any substantive crime, but with the nebulous crime of sedition. While accusing one's political enemies of having foreign bedfellows is hardly a new tactic in American politics, it has always been the resort of the politically desperate.
If all the jobs that are currently done overseas were suddenly moved here, without any changes to minimum wage, occupational safety, workers' compensation, and other laws that affect the cost of an employee, then the companies would be unable to sustain themselves. Then the government would invariably step in and bail them out. So what's the difference between direct welfare payments to individuals and indirectly subsidizing their employment?
And what of the “conservative” talking heads who gleefully champion the wars that get so many soldiers killed, yet have never served a day themselves? Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori sounds quite noble if you never have to look at the results.
If they didn't, they would probably have to fire ALL their domestic workers. Use your brain, dumbass.
First, php.com is not malicious. Second, it is not squatting. The use of the domain is legitimate and unrelated to the programming language. Furthermore, according to WHOIS results for both domains, php.com was registered in 1993 and php.net in 1997. Third, a simple search on the part of any literate user will quickly return php.net as the website for the programming language.
I don't deny that php.com may have caused, and may still cause, harm to PHP. However, that harm is not intentional, and it is unreasonable to fault php.com, which is completely unrelated and predates the interests of the programming language, for causing that harm.
"And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation."
Apparently, proving this statement is left as an exercise for the reader.
Just as an interesting coincidence, my economics teacher did the following:
1) Wrote up his own notes in outline form for every chapter in the book;
2) Provided the notes to every student at the beginning of the class in Word documents;
3) Not only allowed us to keep them, but encouraged us to use them in future studies in Economics--not only with different teachers but even at different institutions.
Apple's argument: Switch to Macs because they don't have the problems Windows PCs have.
Microsoft's argument: Stay with Windows PCs because everybody uses them.
Apple as teenager: But I'm smarter!
Microsoft as teenager: Who cares! I'm more popular!
It's advertising as high school drama.
Microsoft did such a good job with their patent that I only have to reboot Windows XP on Patch Tuesdays!
It's the kind of thing I would never think twice about in a title or subtitle. In those contexts, abbreviation is necessary and the proper meaning can be inferred. My worry is that, in the full wording of a write-up, article, brief, dissertation, etc., people who read them and interpret them may derive a meaning that was not supported by the author or the circumstances being described. Exposure can lead to acceptance, which can lead to legislation. Then again, it will likely amount to nothing, and so getting worked up about it wasn't warranted.
I will concede that your definition is accurate (see, for example, dictionary.com), and indeed it makes sense.
My point referred to the content, and not the use of the term "e-mail." I will admit that, had I given the word "e-mail" more thought, I would have realized that the necessary precondition for the term was that it be sent.
I had not considered corsec67's counter-example, which is indeed a valid example of when the possession of information is illegal. I do not know if the existence of the information itself is illegal; child pornography may be evidence of an illegal act, but if that evidence had to be destroyed because it, too, was illegal, then that would constitute an absurd hindrance to the prosecution of possession crimes.
I would still argue that my point remains valid (modifying it to address the content of the e-mail). The write-up stated "illegal emails;" from this wording alone (paying careful attention to the part of speech), and according to the definitions I've referenced above, this refers to the message itself (which had to have been sent in order to qualify as an "e-mail", but the noun does not refer to the act of sending). Thus, the e-mail contains both the content and the evidence of its transmission (in the form of SMTP and MIME headers), neither of which by themselves are illegal. Thus, the message (and therefore the e-mail) is not illegal; the act of sending it was. The e-mail contains evidence of a crime, but its existence is not the crime.
You may not realize it, but you can still make a valid point without swearing.
The write-up states: "Prosecutors presented evidence of 53,000 illegal e-mails"
The e-mails can be sent in violation of the law and the person who sent them is an offender, but the e-mails themselves cannot be "illegal." Their mere existence does not constitute a violation of the law. If somebody said there were "illegal letters," "illegal phone calls," or "illegal documents," then it would be tantamount to saying that the government restricted the existence of information.
We live in a world where the flow of information is controlled, and indeed there are rational arguments on both sides about whether or not such restrictions constitute censorship. But the existence of information and the possession of it are not crimes. If such things were criminal, no rational mind could argue that the related laws weren't tantamount to censorship.
They are not "illegal e-mails." They are illegally sent e-mails.
Apparently, it's better to have your hands tied behind your back, having consented and become bound to legal agreements you've never read, than be presented with them up front.
Well, I hope Firefox doesn't loose too much ground. It gets nasty when the mud starts flying.
More than thinly veiled? I'd say the veil was long ago taken off completely.
It's also worthy to note that these concepts, which we have learned by experience, make no sense to someone disconnected from them. What, exactly, is a web site? Well, a realistic definition of the term is more complicated than you might think. A technical definition like "the set of all web pages served by a web server" isn't accurate. A lay definition like "a connected set of pages bearing the same name" isn't accurate. The term isn't as concrete as, say, a newspaper or television network--which are still pretty fuzzy (are AP reports that are republished by newspapers "part" of a specific newspaper? what about syndication? etc.) Much better to have the man admit he doesn't understand a term that's not at all easy to truly understand than to have him nod silently.
I think one of the reasons that crazy behavior like this happens is that people hold these things--satellite navigation systems (I refuse to call them "GPSes" as I find that term highly inaccurate)--to be inerrant and smarter than people.
I was driving around in Cleveland, an unfamiliar town to me, and I had been for a couple of days. I was relatively comfortable with the area around where I was staying; I knew how to get to nearby stores and how to get on the road home. I ask one of the relatives I'm staying with how to get somewhere, and his directions are real casual, but simple enough. I'm halfway to the destination, when my passenger insists on me pulling over, calling my relatives, asking for the exact address of the location, and typing it into the navigation system for directions. I knew damn well where I was going, and sure enough the relative's directions would've gotten me there sooner and with less hassle.
My point is just that people, especially those who drive with the navigation systems normally (and I don't), become dependent on them to move along any route they haven't completely traveled before. So much so that they'll waste time and gas to do whatever the devices say, and go to the ends of the Earth--so long as the device says they're going in the right direction.
Okay, I don't care about the bitrate wars. It's sound quality that matters to me, but my only uses for lossless audio are archival and transcoding. But pursuant to that end, why the heck is everybody so heavy-set on constant bitrates? All major lossy audio formats, including MP3, AAC, WMA, and Ogg Vorbis, can encode at variable bitrates, which produce audio that can more accurately reproduce the source material for the same net file size. It just doesn't make sense!
Sorry, here's the "link below" that wasn't:
f m?faq=1#1
http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/MPEG4_FAQ.c
First, I think your market numbers are skewed in Apple's favor, but I'm no expert, and they are just off-the-top-of-the-head estimates. Apple's market share is at least fifty percent, but I don't think it's as high as you say.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, is that AAC is not completely free (in the way that Ogg Vorbis is, for example). Developers of encoding and decoding software ("codecs") and the devices that use them are required to pay licensing fees to the various owners of the format (see link below). This is not much different from MP3.
Third, I certainly don't expect Apple to support WMA if there is no demand for it. But it's difficult to gauge demand for something you can't do. With the notable exclusion of CDs, if iPod owners can only use songs bought from iTunes (because the only protected format played by the iPod is AAC+FairPlay, Apple will not license FairPlay, and until May all mainstream music sold online requires DRM), then what incentive do they have to try elsewhere? The onus I mentioned is the same that lies upon all monopolies, that they should not be overly anticompetitive.
Fourth, as you rightly mentioned, MP3 is an all-around winner, because everybody can play MP3s. They could all cut their costs by just supporting MP3--the licensing fees aren't per song, and some of the companies are probably already paying them anyway. WMA and AAC support just adds additional costs. Of course, all DRM would need to be dropped for this to work as effectively as possible.
For these reasons, I feel it's likely that the various encoding schemes will hold their ground for the most part, instead of having one particular format come to dominate the market.
I think that the premise of the statement "Apple's Move May Make AAC Music Industry Standard" is absurd. While I consider a move in the right direction, the AAC format is not by any means the only format capable of storing music without DRM. In fact, a number of formats do not provide any standardized facilities for encryption and "rights management" (like MP3, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Monkey's Audio, etc.). It would seem more reasonable to me that stores already selling WMA-encoded audio with DRM will simply sell WMA-encoded audio without DRM, rather than switch to AAC, if for no other reason than their target audience already has players capable of playing WMA.
I think the onus lies on Apple, not the others, to adopt support for DRM-free WMA (and other formats) in their players.
Open source is not a verb, dammit. Try "Microsoft to make FoxFro open source" or something like that. Arrgh!