Pax Romana: A period of Roman history in which there was little forceful expansion, few wars, a decline in the size of the military and a pronounced growth of arts and culture.
Although I agree that the US is on a path towards recession, you really think that the EU has it 'more together'? Germany has more than 10% unemployment, France is fighting their own labor war, the Brits are every bit as batty as the Americans and the Spanish and Italians are trying to figure out how to operate under their recently acquired first-world status. Who did I leave out here? The Swiss, generally neutral and happy in being filthy, filthy rich, the militarily insignificant Belgians (although I LOVE Brussels), and for that matter the militarily insignificant Portuguese, and the pacifist Low Countries. So much of Europe is, unfortunately, as industrially impotent as the US.
I agree with you on the Chinese count. They have the industry, the resources and the 'new kid on the block' want to earn some street cred. They start playing extra nicey-nicey with the Middle East and we all have some real problems on our hands.
However, so long as the members of the EU and North America remain vast numbers of mindless consumers of Chinese exports, continuing to develop the Szechuan and Cantonese Nouveau Riche, they have no reason to kill us all.
When resources required for survival become scarce, that's when the Chinese will overpower America, and basically everyone else. Likely by that time, America will have killed itself in debt and civil war, and Europe will have returned to fascist city-states bent on annihilating each other for one reason or another.
You're right that Reagan left office with the biggest deficit ever, but he also set in motion the policies (hint: NOT trickle-down economics) that birthed the boom-time 1990's.
As for icy relations with Russia, after the Russian El Al bombing, Reagan had every chance to 'push the button' against Moscow, or if not go nuclear, start sinking ships and submarines. What did Reagan do? Talk to the Kremlin.
Reagan was also one of the most staunch supporters of the Polish Solidarnosë movement, leading to the end of Polish dictatorship. The Poles, today, are talking about a Mount Rushmore-like memorial to those who spearheaded the movement. Reagan is to be enshrined there as well.
Even Reagan's spending was marginally understandable in historical context. Because of MAD policies, the only way to avert nuclear holocaust was to out-spend the Russians and assure them that their destruction would be total and complete. And in doing so, Reagan served to stimulate the economy on many levels.
He may not have been the best president, but he was certainly a good one; one of the best of the 20th Century.
Answer (and I most certainly don't mean this as a troll): They don't give a flying shit.
This is racketeering at its finest. I accuse you of something. You either pay me a large small sum, or I take you to court and you're stuck, win or lose, with likely more than the initial large small sum I would have accepted as a settlement.
I mean, I have a wireless network secured with basic WEP and MAC filtering. Not really that hard to break in, but hard enough to keep random idiot off my network. Who's to say that I don't have some super-brilliant high school kid (a school's down the street) stealing my wireless to download stuff?
Even worse, how do I even begin explaining WEP, WPA, MAC addresses, IP addresses, spoofing, and other aspects of network security to a judge and jury of my 'peers' who can barely manage to figger out one of them thar new iPads? Hell, in the case of the judge, he may be directly paid off.
Back to TFA. If I were a university, I would internally monitor, very closely, my students' bandwidth use. I would warn and then expel those who use university resources of any kind for anything clearly illegal or in the gray area. Then when the mafIAA comes knocking, I'd tell them to go get fucked. They need to build their own case. If they can't figure out who the 'John Doe' infringer is all by themselves, they can go pound sand.
But, my God man. How would all the poor companies of the world make money if they couldn't market their products to people that have parents to beg for stuff. At least in the US, the tween to 20 market is HUGE for music, games, and retail-based entertainment.
The age of majority in the US is 18; not 21 as you indicated. Alcohol and the ability to run for certain governmental offices are the only things withheld beyond the age of 21. Children may voluntarily (and with no recourse from their parents) drop out of school at 16 (which is also generally the age of consent for minor-minor consensual sex. Persons as young as 14 have been tried as adults for their crimes.
And yes, a drinking age of 21 is pretty stupid. But what do you expect? We tried to ban it altogether...
This notion, my friend, implies that AT&T will be treated fairly and equally under the law.
My suspicion is that even if they ad/inadvertently put themselves in a position to be held as complicit in willful copyright infringement, the government will look the other way about the kiddie porn and stuff.
In other words, by helping the entertainment industry and government defend copyrights, they will likely earn special treatment from the government if accused of facilitating the transfer of child pornography.
I had a phone with Windows mobile on it. It sucked ass big time. There wasn't really one thing it did well other than crash.
Then, I got a Blackberry. Their desktop 'push' concept sucks, although to be fair, it worked pretty reliably. The service was bloody expensive though. Also there was no DUN support at the time, which is my biggest need in a phone.
Now I have a Treo 650. It sucks the least, but still sucks pretty bad. The DUN support is good, although the cell company was useless support-wise, the email works via IMAP and the software isn't too bad. Seriously though. Palm, I'm looking at you. You've had products on the market for 10 years now. The product itself has usually been pretty decent. Your syncing software, and the whole notion of conduits, is not only bad, it's pathetic. No Palm device I've ever had has synched reliably with any OS, let alone one that's not MS. But, I hear you boys are going over to linux. That might maybe possibly help. We'll see.
My point is, if the iPhone sucks anywhere close to as much ass as the other ones AND lacks a keypad, thereby limiting texting potential, it'll be DOA.
I understand the globalization of the marketplace and the diversity of world resources, but I really think it's about time to go back to the pre-1920's political notion of moderate cocooning.
We have so many internal problems to deal with now, and we seem to be overstretching ourselves abroad. Maybe it's time for a mostly closed-door policy.
I'm not suggesting we lock the door and throw away the key, but if we spent half the money that we spend on the military on actually trying to fix domestic issues, we and the rest of the world would be in a better place.
What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" We should keep to ourselves and if an actual, real threat arises, deal with it via the almighty buck and diplomacy. A smaller military could easily provide defense for the country, security abroad and a force to deal with real (as opposed to imagined) military threats.
Everybody will scream 9/11 here, but who will attack us (other than TerroristsTM) if we butt-out for a little while? Even still, cleaning out the caves in Afghanistan did far more good than the objective-less war in Iraq. The Iranians, despite being rather radical are not stupid people. They know that they can make threats all they want with little recourse. They also have to know that America and the European Union have the ability to absolutely erase them from the map if challenged militarily.
I suspect that Mr. Putin is seeking another arms-race in order to revitalize his economy, help his friends make a buck and attempt to keep America in check.
If I were him, I'd be worried about American-influenced security in the Middle East too. He's a lot closer to it, and has more to lose (extensive trade between Russia and the ME).
Sure, King George II only has a limited amount of time left in office, but after yesterday's debate, the Dems look as or more clueless than even he. I'm sure the GOP debate tomorrow will also fail to inspire confidence as well.
Putin is not dumb, although I disagree with his policies. If Khruschev didn't swing first, Putin won't either. Hell, Russia is nearly broke, very corrupt, and has sold off much of their military hardware. The only threat they can make is nukes.
I really hate it when the states or the Fed attempt to enact more tax-and-spend policies.
I'm sure that my state could use the extra cash, as we're understaffed on police, the roads are very poorly maintained statewide and our school system sucks.
However, I have no confidence that the government would be able to collect the tax for less money than the tax would generate. I also have a feeling that the money would just get blown on the ridiculous 'consultancies' that tell our state and local government that we need really expensive crap that doesn't do anything for the common good. For example, we've paid millions into researching light rail that, although seems like a good idea on the surface would never work in this particular place. We've also dumped millions into a downtown revitalization plan that has been mismanaged to the point of criminal negligence.
Before they go after an internet sales tax on the state level, the Fed should go after all the people whose primary business or substantial income is generated by selling stuff online who generally evade paying income tax on the transactions.
How hard would it really be for eBay to 1099 all their sellers? I mean, they collect all the information anyway. As near as I can tell, you need only fill out the paperwork if you use PayPal.
The Fed could even take the money from a Federal internet sales tax and redistribute it to the states themselves or the SBA.
Again, I'm not totally against an internet sales tax, but I think it's generally unenforceable and likely, after the cost of collection, won't actually make much money. It'll just be another departmental expense and administrative nightmare for states that already are running out of control.
1) We're slapping 'HD' on so many old technologies to get people to buy them all over again.
2) With 'HD' audio (such as can be heard on NPR), I can hear the lips and gums of the person on the other end sliding and smacking with such clarity! Just think: Maybe with an HD cellphone you'll actually enjoy the queue music that EVERYONE has these days.
I, for one, would like to simply skip this 'upgrade' altogether. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
There are limits placed on what lenses can be used, with it being generally understood that very long lenses can constitute invasion of privacy. Generally, a safe rule of thumb is if you can see it with your naked eye, and the picture itself doesn't depart from what a reasonable person could see with his naked eye, you're fine.
You are wrong, however, about high resolution digital sensors changing things. I can make an enlargement from a 35mm negative as large or even larger than from my 12mp digital bodies. The method of recording the image should be irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Unwillingness to use excessive force? Sure, no nukes yet in Iraq if that's what you mean.
Guerrilla war can be highly effective. Castro took power after a leaky, overcrowded boat of about 100 people limed to Cuba from Mexico. He fought a MUCH stronger force and won.
Iraq's relative success over the US also demonstrates what can be done with 50-year-old technology against the modern US infantry.
That's not the best argument. I'm a technology-oriented person and am in very good shape. In fact, I'm a state boxing champ. So not all nerds are pasty, 98-pound weaklings.
Second, there is probably tremendous profit potential in dealing in spam. If there weren't, people like this wouldn't do it. What's six months or a few uncomfortable years in prison if you come out rich, and with rights to the TV movie and book?
Finally, you get someone who's already a criminal, and a pretty smart one at that, and throw him in the general population with other criminals. What do you think they're going to talk about there while he festers? Probably one of two things: Jesus or crime, and more probably talk about crime. Prison is like crime college featuring taxpayer-paid tuition, room and board.
Prison should be reserved for those who are out to physically harm others and cannot be loose. We should use community service and other society-beneficial practices to punish and rehabilitate those that commit nonviolent crimes.
I have Ubuntu installed on a few machines around here, and have tried various software packages with various music players, and I can honestly say that while I love linux, stuff like this doesn't work as well as it could if the hardware companies started supporting their devices in Linux.
Although Linux is getting there in terms of usability as a corporate or power-user's desktop, it's still a little out of reach of the common man.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I would want to defend myself freely from ANY accusation; false or otherwise.
You do have a right to represent yourself in court, and you have the right to seek damages, including court costs and lawyers' fees in many cases, from a plaintiff.
I am well aware that you probably won't get very far suing Experian on your own, without an attorney for screwing up your credit score.
The problem is that no amount of legislation gets around the practice of law. Laws dictate right and wrong, or at least legal and illegal. That's pretty plain. The PRACTICE of law deals with interpreting and applying the law.
I have a loathing contempt for the TV-advertising, ambulance chasing, "Have you ever even HEARD of mesothelioma"-practicing lawyers. That said, being a lawyer is providing a service and expertise, and they can rightfully expect to be compensated for their services.
I'm really not sure how to 'fix' the legal system. The entire cost of court would go down if we could get rid of the frivolous suits and inane class-action suits.
In my book, the Wii caters to a more diverse market than the Xbox and PlayStation systems. I do own a 360.
I find myself getting ever more bored by rehashes of the same game over and over and over again on the Xbox and Xbox 360. Gears of War, although fun for the first little while you play it is not a whole lot more than what you get if you mix Doom 3 and Halo.
The entire FPS genre is getting stale in my mind. There are only so many times you can play these before they're all the same.
I would absolutely LOVE to see more diverse types of games make it to the Xbox and PS platforms. Silent Hunter III, Microsoft Flight, Civilization, etc. PC gaming, for me, is just too bloody expensive. Often, the hardware requirements are ridiculous.
Like other forms of entertainment, though, the cost of developing a game is extremely high, and the companies don't dare move away from the beaten path of shooters, sports and RPGs.
Except Nintendo. They have a long history of bringing different stuff to the table. Sure, their Wii offerings include sports, shooters and RPGs, but the interface is pretty unique and the games are less intense. I also suspect they are not nearly as 'network multiplayer' happy as the other guys.
I like multiplayer games, but not usually online. It's not fun for me to run around fragging 14-year-olds. It IS fun for me to snap open a beer or Coke with one of my friends and play a 2-player game of something on the couch.
I want to see Microsoft and Sony encourage developers to release alternative games AND also to encourage developers to make same-console multiplayer better as well as improve the value of the single-player experience.
But yeah, the Wii definitely seems to have more staying power because they're not shooting their wad on the highest-end equipment and most glitz-and-glam features.
That is the way it is supposed to work in the present system. There is nothing that says that defending oneself from false accusations comes without price, time or other resources.
Besides, if all they did was remove her site, they didn't publish anything. If it's not published, it's not libel in any case.
On the other hand, if MySpace put up a replacement page for her profile saying, "This person is a dirty, filthy pederast who not only sexually molests small children, but is also known to be a bad employee and a threat to National Security", then they would have published something and be nearer the realm of, if not in commission of libel.
I am not a lawyer, but have through the course of my work studied media law extensively.
You are correct, mostly, that if a publication puts you in a false and negative light detrimental to you, they MIGHT be found to have libeled you.
However, if you are a 'public figure', in order to have been libeled, by law 'actual malice' at the hands of the offender must be proven in order for you to win the case.
Herein lies the rub: are you becoming a 'public figure' by voluntarily posting information about yourself for all to see in a widely-consumed electronic publication? If you're found to be a 'public figure' then you would have to prove that MySpace intentionally and maliciously slandered you in a severe way.
Here's the other problem: Rupert Murdoch has a lot more money and lawyers than you do. He who has the gold makes the rules. A flaw in the system? Probably. True? Definitely.
Sex offenses are a bad thing. Why, though, do we single out sex offenders as the only criminals that have to wear a scarlet letter?
I really think that we can only fairly brand one if we brand all. And branding all isn't a good solution either.
Truly, I fear my wife getting sexually assaulted, but I have much more fear for her getting murdered, hit by a drunk driver, or killed by someone's criminal negligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's go over a few things here:
Pax Romana: A period of Roman history in which there was little forceful expansion, few wars, a decline in the size of the military and a pronounced growth of arts and culture.
Although I agree that the US is on a path towards recession, you really think that the EU has it 'more together'? Germany has more than 10% unemployment, France is fighting their own labor war, the Brits are every bit as batty as the Americans and the Spanish and Italians are trying to figure out how to operate under their recently acquired first-world status. Who did I leave out here? The Swiss, generally neutral and happy in being filthy, filthy rich, the militarily insignificant Belgians (although I LOVE Brussels), and for that matter the militarily insignificant Portuguese, and the pacifist Low Countries. So much of Europe is, unfortunately, as industrially impotent as the US.
I agree with you on the Chinese count. They have the industry, the resources and the 'new kid on the block' want to earn some street cred. They start playing extra nicey-nicey with the Middle East and we all have some real problems on our hands.
However, so long as the members of the EU and North America remain vast numbers of mindless consumers of Chinese exports, continuing to develop the Szechuan and Cantonese Nouveau Riche, they have no reason to kill us all.
When resources required for survival become scarce, that's when the Chinese will overpower America, and basically everyone else. Likely by that time, America will have killed itself in debt and civil war, and Europe will have returned to fascist city-states bent on annihilating each other for one reason or another.
You're right that Reagan left office with the biggest deficit ever, but he also set in motion the policies (hint: NOT trickle-down economics) that birthed the boom-time 1990's.
As for icy relations with Russia, after the Russian El Al bombing, Reagan had every chance to 'push the button' against Moscow, or if not go nuclear, start sinking ships and submarines. What did Reagan do? Talk to the Kremlin.
Reagan was also one of the most staunch supporters of the Polish Solidarnosë movement, leading to the end of Polish dictatorship. The Poles, today, are talking about a Mount Rushmore-like memorial to those who spearheaded the movement. Reagan is to be enshrined there as well.
Even Reagan's spending was marginally understandable in historical context. Because of MAD policies, the only way to avert nuclear holocaust was to out-spend the Russians and assure them that their destruction would be total and complete. And in doing so, Reagan served to stimulate the economy on many levels.
He may not have been the best president, but he was certainly a good one; one of the best of the 20th Century.
Answer (and I most certainly don't mean this as a troll): They don't give a flying shit.
This is racketeering at its finest. I accuse you of something. You either pay me a large small sum, or I take you to court and you're stuck, win or lose, with likely more than the initial large small sum I would have accepted as a settlement.
I mean, I have a wireless network secured with basic WEP and MAC filtering. Not really that hard to break in, but hard enough to keep random idiot off my network. Who's to say that I don't have some super-brilliant high school kid (a school's down the street) stealing my wireless to download stuff?
Even worse, how do I even begin explaining WEP, WPA, MAC addresses, IP addresses, spoofing, and other aspects of network security to a judge and jury of my 'peers' who can barely manage to figger out one of them thar new iPads? Hell, in the case of the judge, he may be directly paid off.
Back to TFA. If I were a university, I would internally monitor, very closely, my students' bandwidth use. I would warn and then expel those who use university resources of any kind for anything clearly illegal or in the gray area. Then when the mafIAA comes knocking, I'd tell them to go get fucked. They need to build their own case. If they can't figure out who the 'John Doe' infringer is all by themselves, they can go pound sand.
Anyone happen to know if the phone and plan will allow for 'tethered' dial-up-networking?
But, my God man. How would all the poor companies of the world make money if they couldn't market their products to people that have parents to beg for stuff. At least in the US, the tween to 20 market is HUGE for music, games, and retail-based entertainment.
Just a quick point...
The age of majority in the US is 18; not 21 as you indicated. Alcohol and the ability to run for certain governmental offices are the only things withheld beyond the age of 21. Children may voluntarily (and with no recourse from their parents) drop out of school at 16 (which is also generally the age of consent for minor-minor consensual sex. Persons as young as 14 have been tried as adults for their crimes.
And yes, a drinking age of 21 is pretty stupid. But what do you expect? We tried to ban it altogether...
I love attempting to use math and numbers to define day-to-day events.
That having been said, the notion that one could statistically predict the outcome of something so random and chaotic as war is highly unlikely.
I'm forecasting a 95% chance of bullshit.
This notion, my friend, implies that AT&T will be treated fairly and equally under the law.
My suspicion is that even if they ad/inadvertently put themselves in a position to be held as complicit in willful copyright infringement, the government will look the other way about the kiddie porn and stuff.
In other words, by helping the entertainment industry and government defend copyrights, they will likely earn special treatment from the government if accused of facilitating the transfer of child pornography.
Yeah. I remember.
Have you heard the exhaust note on one of these?
But alas, I'm just a photographer.
Um, what?
I had a phone with Windows mobile on it. It sucked ass big time. There wasn't really one thing it did well other than crash.
Then, I got a Blackberry. Their desktop 'push' concept sucks, although to be fair, it worked pretty reliably. The service was bloody expensive though. Also there was no DUN support at the time, which is my biggest need in a phone.
Now I have a Treo 650. It sucks the least, but still sucks pretty bad. The DUN support is good, although the cell company was useless support-wise, the email works via IMAP and the software isn't too bad. Seriously though. Palm, I'm looking at you. You've had products on the market for 10 years now. The product itself has usually been pretty decent. Your syncing software, and the whole notion of conduits, is not only bad, it's pathetic. No Palm device I've ever had has synched reliably with any OS, let alone one that's not MS. But, I hear you boys are going over to linux. That might maybe possibly help. We'll see.
My point is, if the iPhone sucks anywhere close to as much ass as the other ones AND lacks a keypad, thereby limiting texting potential, it'll be DOA.
I understand the globalization of the marketplace and the diversity of world resources, but I really think it's about time to go back to the pre-1920's political notion of moderate cocooning.
We have so many internal problems to deal with now, and we seem to be overstretching ourselves abroad. Maybe it's time for a mostly closed-door policy.
I'm not suggesting we lock the door and throw away the key, but if we spent half the money that we spend on the military on actually trying to fix domestic issues, we and the rest of the world would be in a better place.
What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" We should keep to ourselves and if an actual, real threat arises, deal with it via the almighty buck and diplomacy. A smaller military could easily provide defense for the country, security abroad and a force to deal with real (as opposed to imagined) military threats.
Everybody will scream 9/11 here, but who will attack us (other than TerroristsTM) if we butt-out for a little while? Even still, cleaning out the caves in Afghanistan did far more good than the objective-less war in Iraq. The Iranians, despite being rather radical are not stupid people. They know that they can make threats all they want with little recourse. They also have to know that America and the European Union have the ability to absolutely erase them from the map if challenged militarily.
I suspect that Mr. Putin is seeking another arms-race in order to revitalize his economy, help his friends make a buck and attempt to keep America in check.
If I were him, I'd be worried about American-influenced security in the Middle East too. He's a lot closer to it, and has more to lose (extensive trade between Russia and the ME).
Sure, King George II only has a limited amount of time left in office, but after yesterday's debate, the Dems look as or more clueless than even he. I'm sure the GOP debate tomorrow will also fail to inspire confidence as well.
Putin is not dumb, although I disagree with his policies. If Khruschev didn't swing first, Putin won't either. Hell, Russia is nearly broke, very corrupt, and has sold off much of their military hardware. The only threat they can make is nukes.
I really hate it when the states or the Fed attempt to enact more tax-and-spend policies.
I'm sure that my state could use the extra cash, as we're understaffed on police, the roads are very poorly maintained statewide and our school system sucks.
However, I have no confidence that the government would be able to collect the tax for less money than the tax would generate. I also have a feeling that the money would just get blown on the ridiculous 'consultancies' that tell our state and local government that we need really expensive crap that doesn't do anything for the common good. For example, we've paid millions into researching light rail that, although seems like a good idea on the surface would never work in this particular place. We've also dumped millions into a downtown revitalization plan that has been mismanaged to the point of criminal negligence.
Before they go after an internet sales tax on the state level, the Fed should go after all the people whose primary business or substantial income is generated by selling stuff online who generally evade paying income tax on the transactions.
How hard would it really be for eBay to 1099 all their sellers? I mean, they collect all the information anyway. As near as I can tell, you need only fill out the paperwork if you use PayPal.
The Fed could even take the money from a Federal internet sales tax and redistribute it to the states themselves or the SBA.
Again, I'm not totally against an internet sales tax, but I think it's generally unenforceable and likely, after the cost of collection, won't actually make much money. It'll just be another departmental expense and administrative nightmare for states that already are running out of control.
I really love that:
1) We're slapping 'HD' on so many old technologies to get people to buy them all over again.
2) With 'HD' audio (such as can be heard on NPR), I can hear the lips and gums of the person on the other end sliding and smacking with such clarity! Just think: Maybe with an HD cellphone you'll actually enjoy the queue music that EVERYONE has these days.
I, for one, would like to simply skip this 'upgrade' altogether. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
There are limits placed on what lenses can be used, with it being generally understood that very long lenses can constitute invasion of privacy. Generally, a safe rule of thumb is if you can see it with your naked eye, and the picture itself doesn't depart from what a reasonable person could see with his naked eye, you're fine.
You are wrong, however, about high resolution digital sensors changing things. I can make an enlargement from a 35mm negative as large or even larger than from my 12mp digital bodies. The method of recording the image should be irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Unwillingness to use excessive force? Sure, no nukes yet in Iraq if that's what you mean.
Guerrilla war can be highly effective. Castro took power after a leaky, overcrowded boat of about 100 people limed to Cuba from Mexico. He fought a MUCH stronger force and won.
Iraq's relative success over the US also demonstrates what can be done with 50-year-old technology against the modern US infantry.
That's not the best argument. I'm a technology-oriented person and am in very good shape. In fact, I'm a state boxing champ. So not all nerds are pasty, 98-pound weaklings.
Second, there is probably tremendous profit potential in dealing in spam. If there weren't, people like this wouldn't do it. What's six months or a few uncomfortable years in prison if you come out rich, and with rights to the TV movie and book?
Finally, you get someone who's already a criminal, and a pretty smart one at that, and throw him in the general population with other criminals. What do you think they're going to talk about there while he festers? Probably one of two things: Jesus or crime, and more probably talk about crime. Prison is like crime college featuring taxpayer-paid tuition, room and board.
Prison should be reserved for those who are out to physically harm others and cannot be loose. We should use community service and other society-beneficial practices to punish and rehabilitate those that commit nonviolent crimes.
Like the 'real' sentences have stopped drug use and abuse as well as trafficking?
The US imprisons more people than the vast majority of the world's countries.
Nevermind the fact that it can cost us more to imprison someone than the monetary value of the damage he did.
I have Ubuntu installed on a few machines around here, and have tried various software packages with various music players, and I can honestly say that while I love linux, stuff like this doesn't work as well as it could if the hardware companies started supporting their devices in Linux.
Although Linux is getting there in terms of usability as a corporate or power-user's desktop, it's still a little out of reach of the common man.
I'm sure in a couple more years, it'll be there.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I would want to defend myself freely from ANY accusation; false or otherwise.
You do have a right to represent yourself in court, and you have the right to seek damages, including court costs and lawyers' fees in many cases, from a plaintiff.
I am well aware that you probably won't get very far suing Experian on your own, without an attorney for screwing up your credit score.
The problem is that no amount of legislation gets around the practice of law. Laws dictate right and wrong, or at least legal and illegal. That's pretty plain. The PRACTICE of law deals with interpreting and applying the law.
I have a loathing contempt for the TV-advertising, ambulance chasing, "Have you ever even HEARD of mesothelioma"-practicing lawyers. That said, being a lawyer is providing a service and expertise, and they can rightfully expect to be compensated for their services.
I'm really not sure how to 'fix' the legal system. The entire cost of court would go down if we could get rid of the frivolous suits and inane class-action suits.
In my book, the Wii caters to a more diverse market than the Xbox and PlayStation systems. I do own a 360.
I find myself getting ever more bored by rehashes of the same game over and over and over again on the Xbox and Xbox 360. Gears of War, although fun for the first little while you play it is not a whole lot more than what you get if you mix Doom 3 and Halo.
The entire FPS genre is getting stale in my mind. There are only so many times you can play these before they're all the same.
I would absolutely LOVE to see more diverse types of games make it to the Xbox and PS platforms. Silent Hunter III, Microsoft Flight, Civilization, etc. PC gaming, for me, is just too bloody expensive. Often, the hardware requirements are ridiculous.
Like other forms of entertainment, though, the cost of developing a game is extremely high, and the companies don't dare move away from the beaten path of shooters, sports and RPGs.
Except Nintendo. They have a long history of bringing different stuff to the table. Sure, their Wii offerings include sports, shooters and RPGs, but the interface is pretty unique and the games are less intense. I also suspect they are not nearly as 'network multiplayer' happy as the other guys.
I like multiplayer games, but not usually online. It's not fun for me to run around fragging 14-year-olds. It IS fun for me to snap open a beer or Coke with one of my friends and play a 2-player game of something on the couch.
I want to see Microsoft and Sony encourage developers to release alternative games AND also to encourage developers to make same-console multiplayer better as well as improve the value of the single-player experience.
But yeah, the Wii definitely seems to have more staying power because they're not shooting their wad on the highest-end equipment and most glitz-and-glam features.
That is the way it is supposed to work in the present system. There is nothing that says that defending oneself from false accusations comes without price, time or other resources.
Guess I hit the post button too quickly.
Besides, if all they did was remove her site, they didn't publish anything. If it's not published, it's not libel in any case.
On the other hand, if MySpace put up a replacement page for her profile saying, "This person is a dirty, filthy pederast who not only sexually molests small children, but is also known to be a bad employee and a threat to National Security", then they would have published something and be nearer the realm of, if not in commission of libel.
I am not a lawyer, but have through the course of my work studied media law extensively.
You are correct, mostly, that if a publication puts you in a false and negative light detrimental to you, they MIGHT be found to have libeled you.
However, if you are a 'public figure', in order to have been libeled, by law 'actual malice' at the hands of the offender must be proven in order for you to win the case.
Herein lies the rub: are you becoming a 'public figure' by voluntarily posting information about yourself for all to see in a widely-consumed electronic publication? If you're found to be a 'public figure' then you would have to prove that MySpace intentionally and maliciously slandered you in a severe way.
Here's the other problem: Rupert Murdoch has a lot more money and lawyers than you do. He who has the gold makes the rules. A flaw in the system? Probably. True? Definitely.
Why stop there? Why not list people convicted of:
Murder
manslaughter
vehicular manslaughter
DUI
narcotics possession and/or trafficking
assault
battery
fraud
theft
dead-beat dads (and moms)
Sex offenses are a bad thing. Why, though, do we single out sex offenders as the only criminals that have to wear a scarlet letter?
I really think that we can only fairly brand one if we brand all. And branding all isn't a good solution either.
Truly, I fear my wife getting sexually assaulted, but I have much more fear for her getting murdered, hit by a drunk driver, or killed by someone's criminal negligence.