The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals...
Isn't that always the published 'intent' of these kinds of laws? Unfortunately, it's the capricious application of the law to other parties that really makes it bad.
So basically, now Britain is more of a police state, and the US is a police state, China is a police state, Mexico is a police state, France is a police state, Russia is a police state.
You say you want a revolution?
Might be time to start dumping tea into the proverbial harbor all over the world.
Radiohead aside, I really think a reasonable price for a media-less album downloaded by the end-user is between $2 and $4 dollars per album.
With modern recording technology, cutting an album has become VERY cheap. In fact, while studying music in college, my brother used to make recordings in the basement of his house with minimal adjustments or enhancements made to the space. Basically an Ebay soundboard, a few decent microphones, a few decent amps and cabinets and he was good to go. Oh yeah, and a TON of knowledge about how sound works and what sounds good.
Online storage and hosting is becoming cheap enough that it really wouldn't cost a band much to host their own 'store'. The best part is that it only gets more expensive as they get more popular (and need more space/bandwidth).
Even having your own pressed CD to sell at shows has gotten much cheaper. Check out current pricing on cd duplicators at B&H (bhphotovideo.com). For under $2k, you can have a really nice set-up and the ability to stamp enough CDs to sell at your shows. And you can make (reasonably speaking) as many or as few as you need. Sure, when you get super popular, then you can contract with someone to press the discs for you.
Desktop publishing has gotten simple enough that basically anyone can design posters, t-shirts and mousepads; and find someone to manufacture them on the cheap/on-demand.
Record companies as we know them are basically fscked.
It's not at all a matter of law, nor is this particular case a matter of property ownership.
The law: It's not illegal to sell or license someone a good or service with ridiculous terms attached, so long as the terms themselves are legal and in good faith and the buying party is aware (or can reasonably be made aware) of them. People are actually dumb enough to 'buy' stuff that they don't own or can't control. That's the uneducated market at work for you.
But this isn't even a matter of ownership. It is pretty crystal clear that you OWN your iPhone. You paid money to buy the hardware, you paid money to license the software, and you pay money to use the cellular bandwidth for calls and data.
If the software stops working (IE, Apple releases a new firmware/OS that breaks the core functionality of the original, unmodified device), you might be able to get Apple to fix/replace the phone. If AT&T/SBC decides they're not going to offer you cellular service anymore, they have to let you out of your contract without penalty. If you decide to take your $500 iPhone and hit it with a hammer to see what kind of noise it will make, well that's you're problem.
It's not like if you hack your iPhone, Apple comes to your door and accuses you of destroying their property. You didn't. It's your phone to do with as you please. But the contract you signed probably said something to the effect that they will only support unhacked/unmodified/etc. phones.
Bad car analogy: I own a Jeep. I bought it new and it is under warranty. If I drive it responsibly and follow the scheduled maintenance protocols, it will stay under warranty for another 2 years. I did put a suspension lift on it; and in doing so replaced and/or modified factory suspension components. I have no expectation that Chrysler will honor the factory warranty for any part of the suspension now, mine or theirs. And that's fine. If the engine throws a rod, you bet damn right I expect Chrysler to fix it under warranty, as it is completely unrelated to the suspension. If, while putting the lift on, I bent the frame or broke an axle, how is that Chrysler's fault? If the suspension modifications indeed were incompatible with the Jeep, how is that Chrysler's problem? They sold me a working product under very clear terms. I chose to make my own changes to it.
You definitely own the phone. You license/lease the software and service, respectively.
As much as I hate AT&T, Apple chose to partner with them to distribute and provide cellular service for the iPhone. Given all the nefarious and legally questionable stuff AT&T has done over the years, are we really that surprised that they/Apple are taking active measure to prevent people from taking their iPhone to other providers?
I like a lot of Apple's products, but won't buy an iPhone until they are available through other providers. ATT& is pure, unadulterated evil.
Yeah. I'm a huge fan of both classical and blues and I'm amazed at the selections for both. A lot of rare, hard-to-find stuff for cheap ($8.99/album in most cases).
I think I just started buying music again.
Re:A lot of piss-poor games
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: 1
Haven't played Bioshock yet. I'm hoping to pick it up next month when I have a bit more free time.
I didn't download the demo for MOH, one of the rare instances that I didn't try before I bought. I wish I had.
Re:A lot of piss-poor games
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I really like historical shooters. Brothers in Arms was great, as was Medal of Honor Allied Assault (the last MOH I played). Call of Duty 2 and 3 (never played the first one) was equally good and had pretty decent multiplayer features.
They had a chance to do something really cool with Airborne; and in fact there are some good features. The graphics are incredible, and the non-linear, start-wherever-you-want setup is pretty cool. They just lost it with the very short single player campaign, and the ridiculous Super Nazis at the end (as well as less-than stellar AI).
I also don't trust online game reviews any more than I trust movie reviews. There's plenty of good stuff out there that gets trashed, and vice versa.
A lot of piss-poor games
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've been noticing a lot of crap on both consoles recently. I haven't had much time for videogames, but I did pick up MOH Airborne, and it blows. The multiplayer is the same crap that's seen in every FPS game these days, the storyline isn't much fun and the Super Nazis at the last few missions really kill the feel of the game.
Besides that, the single player campaign is all too short (5 hours to beat it on Normal, with more than one hour of that dedicated to beating the Super Nazis at the end.
Overlord was a good game, but the brewery glitch is a real killer, and precludes you from finishing the game. Last I checked, there was still not a 360 patch out there.
And Lair. Great graphics, shitty, shitty gameplay.
When the next generation Xbox360 and PS3 hit, it was expected that some games wouldn't do anything more than win oohs and ahs for the graphics. They've both been out for a while now. Where are the games?
Some guy in the raytracing story today said that 80% of all games have always been stinkers across all platforms. Maybe that's true, but there were a lot more games available too. That was a bigger 20%.
I don't own a Wii, but it's going to be short in coming if I don't find some games for Xbox360 or PS3 that can hold my attention for more than a few hours. At $60 a game, this is getting kinda ridiculous.
We'll see what Halo looks like next week. My guess: a re-hash of the same old game.
Instead of suing, why not hit them where it really hurts. I go out of my way to not shop anywhere where they inspect receipts on the way out the door.
In some cases, I've been asked for a receipt, and in turn I've asked for a manager to watch/help me return all the merchandise I purchased.
I don't shop at Best Buy, I don't shop at Circuit City. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I don't shop at Sam's Club. I've given up on Fry's Electronics, and similarly on CompUSA.
What do these places have that absolutely everyone is willing to put up with their crap to get? Even for this guy who won a pyrrhic victory; the cost of the suit was paid by the hundreds of walking cash registers who midlessly hand over money for shit they don't need to anyone who will take it.
Hit them where it hurts: don't shop at places you don't like. And tell a friend.
When I was a kid in the early 80's, we had a lot of foot patrol officers in my neighborhood. Some of them were dicks; the kind of guys that expected free coffee or free sandwiches from the local restaurants just because they were cops.
But, the neighborhood went from kinda crappy to really nice inside a matter of a year or so. And really, cops fear people just like we fear cops, which leads to unpleasantness on both sides.
* American products become cheaper to foreign markets. This helps with the trade imbalances we currently have.
What is it that we produce again, beyond credit products and consulting. I'm talking in the range of consumer or industrial products.
* Foreign products become more expensive to American consumers, also helping with trade deficits.
...But at the same time further weakens the American economy. We cannot, under the present economy, 'make' stuff as cheap as other countries (China, Slovenia, Turkey, etc.) can. Computers are 'cheap' in the US now because Chinese workers assemble the PCBs for literally dollars a day, where we can more adequately measure skilled labor costs in dollars per hour.
So by the time we retool our now closed factories to start making stuff again, and buying the raw materials to do so with a weaker currency, we're at a pretty huge economic disadvantage. And before the skilled laborers required to run machines for $3-$4/hour instead of the $15-$30/hour they presently see, the economy is going to have to get even worse. Otherwise, something has to give.
* It discourages foreign workers from sneaking into the US. Getting $4.00 an hour is suddenly not so much compared to what they get paid in their home country.
So long as it's better in any way to be in the US, they will continue to come. And frankly, we need them. It is true that the 'just-crossed-the-border' immigrant will work a lot harder and a lot dirtier for the money than the average American suburbanite will. And they have no recourse not to work because going on welfare is not an option. Right now, you can make more on welfare (if you have children) than at basically any entry-level or unskilled labor job.
I'm not suggesting that we should marginalize or enslave immigrants, or treat them as indentured servants, but it is their 'deregulated' nature that allows them to operate as they do, and fulfill a niche in the economy. In the And we as a society have come to rely on them to do so. Throughout the history of ALL 'successful' (US, British, Roman, Egyptian, Greek, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) civilizations, those same successes have always relied on an economic substrate or underclass to support the inordinate affluence of the upper class. I'm not saying I'm against it. Just stating fact.
As we begin to regulate immigrants, we 'up' the street value for those that jump through the hoops to become legal.
So as the economy in the US weakens, we gradually start calling for the regulation and naturalization of hitherto 'illegal' immigrants. We do so in the name of preventing terrorism and not 'stealing jobs' from Americans. It has yet to get to the point where illegal immigrants compete with a significant number of Americans for jobs. However, as the economy weakens, eventually Americans will be competing with illegals for the same jobs. At that point, we've, as usual, already trained our replacements. At that point, the economy is basically fscked anyway.
As Americans, we carry so much debt that it won't take much for the economy to tumble, and fall hard.
It is my hope that some of those who made vast fortunes in the time after WWII, the Carnegies and Goulds of the modern era in the form of Gates and Frick have the hindsight and the progeny (genetic or otherwise) who can capitalize on this weakened economy, and put the US back on track.
Sadly, I think that we will continue to Visa ourselves to death on an individual level while the government throws away money on unwinnable wars and aimless other projects.
Now is a time for strong leadership, and cautious economic policy. But with no real industrial infrastructure remaining, I don't see any good coming from a weakening US economy.
Given the assumption that not all cops are bad, and going further saying that most cops are good, the solution to the crime problem is to get police back on foot in communities.
You can only stop so much crime blowing through an arterial road at 45mph. But regularly patrolling an area on foot, a good cop will notice that "Mrs. Allison's car is gone, and the front door is wide open" prompting a closer look.
Also, foot patrol (or bicycle, rollerblade, whatever) cops aren't generally tied up with traffic stops and other non-criminal events. They are free to stop the little crimes (graffiti, vandalism, burglary) that scare off the 'good' folks allowing seedier elements to take over an area.
But, cops on foot are expensive. And you need a lot of them to be effective. And since they're going after criminals, they're not making the city any money in the form of tickets and fines.
There are some jobs best done by real humans on location. Maybe your board meeting with the Beijing office can be done via teleconference, but protecting residents and preventing crime cannot.
Seems pretty clear to me that the Constitution is defining people that are citizens, or at least residents, of the territory known then and now as the United States.
Remember also that the Founders, for the most part, did not see blacks, indigenous people or women for that matter as a part of 'We the People'.
The Constitution and the government it regulates are both changing and evolving entities. Just like in the natural world, not all changes are for the better or clearly defined. It is for precisely that reason that we must hold our elected and appointed officials to the absolute highest standards.
This is also why we must educate our society so that the average man is smart enough to know when Uncle Sam is putting the screws to him.
Yes, you are completely correct. We have no 'right' to use any specific means of travel other than our own two feet.
In fact, by boarding an aircraft, a naval vessel or even driving your own car (all privileged modes of transport), you automatically waive several rights. Airport security in every country that I know of is allowed to search any and all baggage with or without probable cause and with or without a warrant. Airport security also has full discretion to prevent you from bringing any item they deem unsafe onto the aircraft. As an aside, I was once told that not only was I prohibited from bringing a telescoping monopod (like one leg of a tripod, and used in a similar manner) onto a plane as a carry-on, but also prohibited from putting it even in checked baggage. The same is true for naval vessels.
By driving a car, you waive your right to refuse an Intoxalyzer test in most states, and some even require you to give up other search and seizure rights as well when you accept a driver license.
Generally speaking, I agree with searching baggage going onboard a plane or ship not because I worry about a bomb intentionally being put into baggage, but more because some people are really dumb, and some household objects can be very volatile under pressure and after being jostled around. One time I saw some moron going on a hunting trip trying to explain to the security folks that he thought bringing a few camping-size propane cylinders on the plane was no big deal.
Although I'm generally against mandatory Intoxalyzers due to the fact that they really do nothing to prove intoxication, at least police are supposed to have probable cause before subjecting you to one; therefore complying with due process.
I would feel better about these types of searches if no record was kept of non-prohibited items.
We have to find a happy medium between a reasonable guarantee of safety and outright datamining. It would seem that the government has crossed that line.
What about in a case where no money is stolen, but rather credit card numbers and SSNs?
Likely the person who makes use of that information is not the same person who stole it. Even if that's the case, how many different places can you go to swipe someone's name, SSN and even DOB? Until recent years, universities used SSNs as student ID numbers.
If money goes from account A to account B, sure follow the money. When bits and bytes with no direct monetary value goes missing from one place, who's to say that where it ends up is anywhere having to do anything with the initial crime?
I agree that cybercrime is a huge problem (although I don't buy that it's more of a problem than illegal drug trade). At the very least, it is a crime on a lesser level because no one is placed in danger of physical harm through it's effects.
Cybercrime, as well as other crimes, should be punished according to the level of damage caused.
With that in mind, the current US court systems cannot seem to wrap their heads around the tactics and ideas put forth in the discovery period of civil copyright cases. There is a common misunderstanding or complete lack of understanding on the part of most of society in the ways of computers and networking.
At this point, I doubt very seriously that most of the accused and prosecutors have the knowledge or ability to fairly fight a cybercrime court case.
In physical, there is always some level of evidence present to tie a suspect to the crime. In the land of computers, it's much more difficult to do so. Where a physical bank robber can wear a mask or clothing to conceal identifying aspects of his physical person. But there remains at the scene hairs, fibers, eyewitness accounts, surveillance tapes and other evidence that helps to narrow down the criminal.
With cybercrime, the 'break-in' can happen from thousands of miles away without the perpetrator ever setting foot, or having ever previously set foot on the premises. There is no physical description, no chemical or biological evidence left behind. The attack could come from a public terminal at a library, or even someone's open (or hijacked) wireless access point. Through the use of zombie computers, the attack could come from my mother's computer.
How can we expect to catch, let alone prosecute cybercriminals without special law enforcement and prosecution/defense attorneys and judges capable of fairly trying people like my mother or the guy who used her computer to break into the Bank of America system?
I am really, really really not being a troll here, but how many normal end-users EVER watch a DVD on their computer; be it a laptop, desktop or otherwise?
I have a month-old MacBook Pro 15", and even if I wanted to watch a movie on it, the battery would only allow me to get through maybe one movie.
For the cost of a computer with a sufficiently large monitor (the TV in my house is 30") to replicate/improve upon my TV experience, I would need to spend so much money that I could go out and buy a 42" LCD HDTV, and an up-sampling DVD player and all the necessary bits-and-bobs cables and adapters.
I do a lot of international air travel. If the movie or TV on the seatback monitor sucks (and it usually does), I'm content to watch movies or TV shows on my iPod, or just listen to music on the same device. A portable media player is much less obtrusive, much less power hungry and much less expensive to replace or the guy sitting next to you spills his beer/vodka/Coke all over you and the device.
This mentality goes directly against the sense of community that forms civilization.
Parents now, nor at any point throughout history, are not able to watch their children 24/7. Much in the way that animals play and socialize to learn how to fit into the pack (and hence survive), we have evolved as a social species for much the same purpose.
When I was a kid, if I was playing in a neighbor's yard uninvited, you bet I would be chased off by an angry property owner. Even more, I could expect the owner to have a talk with my mom or dad later on. When I was in high school, a bunch of my friends and I went swimming in a privately-owned pond one summer night. We had apparently awoken the guy who owned the pond, and he chased us off with a shotgun. He never shot it, and he never pointed it at anyone.
In those days, and they weren't THAT long ago, even if we had complained to the police about the old man and the shotgun, they would have laughed and asked us what the hell we were doing there anyway. Today, he would be in some pretty serious shit, despite doing nothing to harm anyone.
These days, we are so scared of repercussions, that we let kids get away with whatever they want. We let other adults get away with everything they want. Everybody's so willing to play the lawsuit lottery that we'd rather let the guy at the bar make inappropriate comments than to shove a beer bottle up his ass sideways.
We'd rather let kids run riot than to step up and place community limits on what they can get away with.
I'm certainly not suggesting that someone else should discipline my kids, but they can yell at them all they want if it's merited.
Actually, in the US, you have absolutely no 'right' to go anywhere or buy anything. The non-governmental establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Even this law, as it is applied really only deals with housing, transportation and other core needs.
A case can be made that a business cannot refuse service to someone based on their race, gender or religion, but you have to refuse service to a lot of people before a pattern is set that the establishment refuses service to members of protected group x.
People making certain grades in school are not, as a result, in any protected class. If I want to open a book store and sell only to certified Mensa geniuses, who could stop me? It might not be good for business, but it's still my prerogative to do so.
No, but in that vein when I was in high school, I worked as a delivery boy for an independent pharmacy. When the owner/head pharmacist's wife died from lung cancer, he stopped selling cigarettes at his pharmacy.
He felt that he could do his part to keep people from smoking by simply not selling cigarettes.
This guy sounds like he doesn't want to sell video games to kids for whom video games may be contributing to their problems. The only problem I see is that it wasn't his company, and wasn't his place to set policy.
I would applaud this guy for taking a stand and trying to do good. I hope he opens his own business where he can do his part to help society.
Even when I was in college about 10 years ago, there were a good many laptops, cellphones and PDAs in the classroom.
I think professors could, for most classes, counter these trends with a sign on the door saying, "No non-life supporting electronic devices beyond this point. Violators expelled."
I know that the American university (concept, not AU in DC) has become more of a daycare with ashtrays and STDs than a place of higher education for many, many students, but that doesn't mean that the universities have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Decide/accept that your teenage son is mature enough to handle the concept of human sexuality, and understand that exploration is a part of growing up (might be a good time to have a talk); or that he won't access inappropriate sites anyway due to good parenting and respect for limits;
-OR-
Decide that you can't trust your child online, so you put the computer in a high-trafficked area in the house and only turn it on while you can monitor what little Johnny is doing. Violating house rules is a punishable offense in my household. Make it one in yours.
Basically, and I know it's out there but bear with me, I'm suggesting PARENTING YOUR KIDS.
Slashdot Mirror
Winmodem.
Isn't that always the published 'intent' of these kinds of laws? Unfortunately, it's the capricious application of the law to other parties that really makes it bad.
So basically, now Britain is more of a police state, and the US is a police state, China is a police state, Mexico is a police state, France is a police state, Russia is a police state.
You say you want a revolution?
Might be time to start dumping tea into the proverbial harbor all over the world.
Radiohead aside, I really think a reasonable price for a media-less album downloaded by the end-user is between $2 and $4 dollars per album.
With modern recording technology, cutting an album has become VERY cheap. In fact, while studying music in college, my brother used to make recordings in the basement of his house with minimal adjustments or enhancements made to the space. Basically an Ebay soundboard, a few decent microphones, a few decent amps and cabinets and he was good to go. Oh yeah, and a TON of knowledge about how sound works and what sounds good.
Online storage and hosting is becoming cheap enough that it really wouldn't cost a band much to host their own 'store'. The best part is that it only gets more expensive as they get more popular (and need more space/bandwidth).
Even having your own pressed CD to sell at shows has gotten much cheaper. Check out current pricing on cd duplicators at B&H (bhphotovideo.com). For under $2k, you can have a really nice set-up and the ability to stamp enough CDs to sell at your shows. And you can make (reasonably speaking) as many or as few as you need. Sure, when you get super popular, then you can contract with someone to press the discs for you.
Desktop publishing has gotten simple enough that basically anyone can design posters, t-shirts and mousepads; and find someone to manufacture them on the cheap/on-demand.
Record companies as we know them are basically fscked.
It's not at all a matter of law, nor is this particular case a matter of property ownership.
The law: It's not illegal to sell or license someone a good or service with ridiculous terms attached, so long as the terms themselves are legal and in good faith and the buying party is aware (or can reasonably be made aware) of them. People are actually dumb enough to 'buy' stuff that they don't own or can't control. That's the uneducated market at work for you.
But this isn't even a matter of ownership. It is pretty crystal clear that you OWN your iPhone. You paid money to buy the hardware, you paid money to license the software, and you pay money to use the cellular bandwidth for calls and data.
If the software stops working (IE, Apple releases a new firmware/OS that breaks the core functionality of the original, unmodified device), you might be able to get Apple to fix/replace the phone. If AT&T/SBC decides they're not going to offer you cellular service anymore, they have to let you out of your contract without penalty. If you decide to take your $500 iPhone and hit it with a hammer to see what kind of noise it will make, well that's you're problem.
It's not like if you hack your iPhone, Apple comes to your door and accuses you of destroying their property. You didn't. It's your phone to do with as you please. But the contract you signed probably said something to the effect that they will only support unhacked/unmodified/etc. phones.
Bad car analogy: I own a Jeep. I bought it new and it is under warranty. If I drive it responsibly and follow the scheduled maintenance protocols, it will stay under warranty for another 2 years. I did put a suspension lift on it; and in doing so replaced and/or modified factory suspension components. I have no expectation that Chrysler will honor the factory warranty for any part of the suspension now, mine or theirs. And that's fine. If the engine throws a rod, you bet damn right I expect Chrysler to fix it under warranty, as it is completely unrelated to the suspension. If, while putting the lift on, I bent the frame or broke an axle, how is that Chrysler's fault? If the suspension modifications indeed were incompatible with the Jeep, how is that Chrysler's problem? They sold me a working product under very clear terms. I chose to make my own changes to it.
You definitely own the phone. You license/lease the software and service, respectively.
As much as I hate AT&T, Apple chose to partner with them to distribute and provide cellular service for the iPhone. Given all the nefarious and legally questionable stuff AT&T has done over the years, are we really that surprised that they/Apple are taking active measure to prevent people from taking their iPhone to other providers?
I like a lot of Apple's products, but won't buy an iPhone until they are available through other providers. ATT& is pure, unadulterated evil.
Yeah. I'm a huge fan of both classical and blues and I'm amazed at the selections for both. A lot of rare, hard-to-find stuff for cheap ($8.99/album in most cases).
I think I just started buying music again.
Haven't played Bioshock yet. I'm hoping to pick it up next month when I have a bit more free time.
I didn't download the demo for MOH, one of the rare instances that I didn't try before I bought. I wish I had.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I really like historical shooters. Brothers in Arms was great, as was Medal of Honor Allied Assault (the last MOH I played). Call of Duty 2 and 3 (never played the first one) was equally good and had pretty decent multiplayer features.
They had a chance to do something really cool with Airborne; and in fact there are some good features. The graphics are incredible, and the non-linear, start-wherever-you-want setup is pretty cool. They just lost it with the very short single player campaign, and the ridiculous Super Nazis at the end (as well as less-than stellar AI).
I also don't trust online game reviews any more than I trust movie reviews. There's plenty of good stuff out there that gets trashed, and vice versa.
I've been noticing a lot of crap on both consoles recently. I haven't had much time for videogames, but I did pick up MOH Airborne, and it blows. The multiplayer is the same crap that's seen in every FPS game these days, the storyline isn't much fun and the Super Nazis at the last few missions really kill the feel of the game.
Besides that, the single player campaign is all too short (5 hours to beat it on Normal, with more than one hour of that dedicated to beating the Super Nazis at the end.
Overlord was a good game, but the brewery glitch is a real killer, and precludes you from finishing the game. Last I checked, there was still not a 360 patch out there.
And Lair. Great graphics, shitty, shitty gameplay.
When the next generation Xbox360 and PS3 hit, it was expected that some games wouldn't do anything more than win oohs and ahs for the graphics. They've both been out for a while now. Where are the games?
Some guy in the raytracing story today said that 80% of all games have always been stinkers across all platforms. Maybe that's true, but there were a lot more games available too. That was a bigger 20%.
I don't own a Wii, but it's going to be short in coming if I don't find some games for Xbox360 or PS3 that can hold my attention for more than a few hours. At $60 a game, this is getting kinda ridiculous.
We'll see what Halo looks like next week. My guess: a re-hash of the same old game.
Instead of suing, why not hit them where it really hurts. I go out of my way to not shop anywhere where they inspect receipts on the way out the door.
In some cases, I've been asked for a receipt, and in turn I've asked for a manager to watch/help me return all the merchandise I purchased.
I don't shop at Best Buy, I don't shop at Circuit City. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I don't shop at Sam's Club. I've given up on Fry's Electronics, and similarly on CompUSA.
What do these places have that absolutely everyone is willing to put up with their crap to get? Even for this guy who won a pyrrhic victory; the cost of the suit was paid by the hundreds of walking cash registers who midlessly hand over money for shit they don't need to anyone who will take it.
Hit them where it hurts: don't shop at places you don't like. And tell a friend.
When I was a kid in the early 80's, we had a lot of foot patrol officers in my neighborhood. Some of them were dicks; the kind of guys that expected free coffee or free sandwiches from the local restaurants just because they were cops.
But, the neighborhood went from kinda crappy to really nice inside a matter of a year or so. And really, cops fear people just like we fear cops, which leads to unpleasantness on both sides.
What is it that we produce again, beyond credit products and consulting. I'm talking in the range of consumer or industrial products.
* Foreign products become more expensive to American consumers, also helping with trade deficits....But at the same time further weakens the American economy. We cannot, under the present economy, 'make' stuff as cheap as other countries (China, Slovenia, Turkey, etc.) can. Computers are 'cheap' in the US now because Chinese workers assemble the PCBs for literally dollars a day, where we can more adequately measure skilled labor costs in dollars per hour.
So by the time we retool our now closed factories to start making stuff again, and buying the raw materials to do so with a weaker currency, we're at a pretty huge economic disadvantage. And before the skilled laborers required to run machines for $3-$4/hour instead of the $15-$30/hour they presently see, the economy is going to have to get even worse. Otherwise, something has to give.
* It discourages foreign workers from sneaking into the US. Getting $4.00 an hour is suddenly not so much compared to what they get paid in their home country.So long as it's better in any way to be in the US, they will continue to come. And frankly, we need them. It is true that the 'just-crossed-the-border' immigrant will work a lot harder and a lot dirtier for the money than the average American suburbanite will. And they have no recourse not to work because going on welfare is not an option. Right now, you can make more on welfare (if you have children) than at basically any entry-level or unskilled labor job.
I'm not suggesting that we should marginalize or enslave immigrants, or treat them as indentured servants, but it is their 'deregulated' nature that allows them to operate as they do, and fulfill a niche in the economy. In the And we as a society have come to rely on them to do so. Throughout the history of ALL 'successful' (US, British, Roman, Egyptian, Greek, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) civilizations, those same successes have always relied on an economic substrate or underclass to support the inordinate affluence of the upper class. I'm not saying I'm against it. Just stating fact.
As we begin to regulate immigrants, we 'up' the street value for those that jump through the hoops to become legal.
So as the economy in the US weakens, we gradually start calling for the regulation and naturalization of hitherto 'illegal' immigrants. We do so in the name of preventing terrorism and not 'stealing jobs' from Americans. It has yet to get to the point where illegal immigrants compete with a significant number of Americans for jobs. However, as the economy weakens, eventually Americans will be competing with illegals for the same jobs. At that point, we've, as usual, already trained our replacements. At that point, the economy is basically fscked anyway.
As Americans, we carry so much debt that it won't take much for the economy to tumble, and fall hard.
It is my hope that some of those who made vast fortunes in the time after WWII, the Carnegies and Goulds of the modern era in the form of Gates and Frick have the hindsight and the progeny (genetic or otherwise) who can capitalize on this weakened economy, and put the US back on track.
Sadly, I think that we will continue to Visa ourselves to death on an individual level while the government throws away money on unwinnable wars and aimless other projects.
Now is a time for strong leadership, and cautious economic policy. But with no real industrial infrastructure remaining, I don't see any good coming from a weakening US economy.
Given the assumption that not all cops are bad, and going further saying that most cops are good, the solution to the crime problem is to get police back on foot in communities.
You can only stop so much crime blowing through an arterial road at 45mph. But regularly patrolling an area on foot, a good cop will notice that "Mrs. Allison's car is gone, and the front door is wide open" prompting a closer look.
Also, foot patrol (or bicycle, rollerblade, whatever) cops aren't generally tied up with traffic stops and other non-criminal events. They are free to stop the little crimes (graffiti, vandalism, burglary) that scare off the 'good' folks allowing seedier elements to take over an area.
But, cops on foot are expensive. And you need a lot of them to be effective. And since they're going after criminals, they're not making the city any money in the form of tickets and fines.
There are some jobs best done by real humans on location. Maybe your board meeting with the Beijing office can be done via teleconference, but protecting residents and preventing crime cannot.
"We the people of the United States..."
Seems pretty clear to me that the Constitution is defining people that are citizens, or at least residents, of the territory known then and now as the United States.
Remember also that the Founders, for the most part, did not see blacks, indigenous people or women for that matter as a part of 'We the People'.
The Constitution and the government it regulates are both changing and evolving entities. Just like in the natural world, not all changes are for the better or clearly defined. It is for precisely that reason that we must hold our elected and appointed officials to the absolute highest standards.
This is also why we must educate our society so that the average man is smart enough to know when Uncle Sam is putting the screws to him.
Yes, you are completely correct. We have no 'right' to use any specific means of travel other than our own two feet.
In fact, by boarding an aircraft, a naval vessel or even driving your own car (all privileged modes of transport), you automatically waive several rights. Airport security in every country that I know of is allowed to search any and all baggage with or without probable cause and with or without a warrant. Airport security also has full discretion to prevent you from bringing any item they deem unsafe onto the aircraft. As an aside, I was once told that not only was I prohibited from bringing a telescoping monopod (like one leg of a tripod, and used in a similar manner) onto a plane as a carry-on, but also prohibited from putting it even in checked baggage. The same is true for naval vessels.
By driving a car, you waive your right to refuse an Intoxalyzer test in most states, and some even require you to give up other search and seizure rights as well when you accept a driver license.
Generally speaking, I agree with searching baggage going onboard a plane or ship not because I worry about a bomb intentionally being put into baggage, but more because some people are really dumb, and some household objects can be very volatile under pressure and after being jostled around. One time I saw some moron going on a hunting trip trying to explain to the security folks that he thought bringing a few camping-size propane cylinders on the plane was no big deal.
Although I'm generally against mandatory Intoxalyzers due to the fact that they really do nothing to prove intoxication, at least police are supposed to have probable cause before subjecting you to one; therefore complying with due process.
I would feel better about these types of searches if no record was kept of non-prohibited items.
We have to find a happy medium between a reasonable guarantee of safety and outright datamining. It would seem that the government has crossed that line.
Don't most laptops these days ALREADY ship with Sony Li-ion batteries?
*ducks*
What about in a case where no money is stolen, but rather credit card numbers and SSNs?
Likely the person who makes use of that information is not the same person who stole it. Even if that's the case, how many different places can you go to swipe someone's name, SSN and even DOB? Until recent years, universities used SSNs as student ID numbers.
If money goes from account A to account B, sure follow the money. When bits and bytes with no direct monetary value goes missing from one place, who's to say that where it ends up is anywhere having to do anything with the initial crime?
I agree that cybercrime is a huge problem (although I don't buy that it's more of a problem than illegal drug trade). At the very least, it is a crime on a lesser level because no one is placed in danger of physical harm through it's effects.
Cybercrime, as well as other crimes, should be punished according to the level of damage caused.
With that in mind, the current US court systems cannot seem to wrap their heads around the tactics and ideas put forth in the discovery period of civil copyright cases. There is a common misunderstanding or complete lack of understanding on the part of most of society in the ways of computers and networking.
At this point, I doubt very seriously that most of the accused and prosecutors have the knowledge or ability to fairly fight a cybercrime court case.
In physical, there is always some level of evidence present to tie a suspect to the crime. In the land of computers, it's much more difficult to do so. Where a physical bank robber can wear a mask or clothing to conceal identifying aspects of his physical person. But there remains at the scene hairs, fibers, eyewitness accounts, surveillance tapes and other evidence that helps to narrow down the criminal.
With cybercrime, the 'break-in' can happen from thousands of miles away without the perpetrator ever setting foot, or having ever previously set foot on the premises. There is no physical description, no chemical or biological evidence left behind. The attack could come from a public terminal at a library, or even someone's open (or hijacked) wireless access point. Through the use of zombie computers, the attack could come from my mother's computer.
How can we expect to catch, let alone prosecute cybercriminals without special law enforcement and prosecution/defense attorneys and judges capable of fairly trying people like my mother or the guy who used her computer to break into the Bank of America system?
I am really, really really not being a troll here, but how many normal end-users EVER watch a DVD on their computer; be it a laptop, desktop or otherwise?
I have a month-old MacBook Pro 15", and even if I wanted to watch a movie on it, the battery would only allow me to get through maybe one movie.
For the cost of a computer with a sufficiently large monitor (the TV in my house is 30") to replicate/improve upon my TV experience, I would need to spend so much money that I could go out and buy a 42" LCD HDTV, and an up-sampling DVD player and all the necessary bits-and-bobs cables and adapters.
I do a lot of international air travel. If the movie or TV on the seatback monitor sucks (and it usually does), I'm content to watch movies or TV shows on my iPod, or just listen to music on the same device. A portable media player is much less obtrusive, much less power hungry and much less expensive to replace or the guy sitting next to you spills his beer/vodka/Coke all over you and the device.
Wow. Talk about racist overtones. You hear baggy, oversized pants and immediately think he means black.
Where I'm from, good-for-nothing kids come in all colors and clothing styles.
This mentality goes directly against the sense of community that forms civilization.
Parents now, nor at any point throughout history, are not able to watch their children 24/7. Much in the way that animals play and socialize to learn how to fit into the pack (and hence survive), we have evolved as a social species for much the same purpose.
When I was a kid, if I was playing in a neighbor's yard uninvited, you bet I would be chased off by an angry property owner. Even more, I could expect the owner to have a talk with my mom or dad later on. When I was in high school, a bunch of my friends and I went swimming in a privately-owned pond one summer night. We had apparently awoken the guy who owned the pond, and he chased us off with a shotgun. He never shot it, and he never pointed it at anyone.
In those days, and they weren't THAT long ago, even if we had complained to the police about the old man and the shotgun, they would have laughed and asked us what the hell we were doing there anyway. Today, he would be in some pretty serious shit, despite doing nothing to harm anyone.
These days, we are so scared of repercussions, that we let kids get away with whatever they want. We let other adults get away with everything they want. Everybody's so willing to play the lawsuit lottery that we'd rather let the guy at the bar make inappropriate comments than to shove a beer bottle up his ass sideways.
We'd rather let kids run riot than to step up and place community limits on what they can get away with.
I'm certainly not suggesting that someone else should discipline my kids, but they can yell at them all they want if it's merited.
Actually, in the US, you have absolutely no 'right' to go anywhere or buy anything. The non-governmental establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Even this law, as it is applied really only deals with housing, transportation and other core needs.
A case can be made that a business cannot refuse service to someone based on their race, gender or religion, but you have to refuse service to a lot of people before a pattern is set that the establishment refuses service to members of protected group x.
People making certain grades in school are not, as a result, in any protected class. If I want to open a book store and sell only to certified Mensa geniuses, who could stop me? It might not be good for business, but it's still my prerogative to do so.
No, but in that vein when I was in high school, I worked as a delivery boy for an independent pharmacy. When the owner/head pharmacist's wife died from lung cancer, he stopped selling cigarettes at his pharmacy.
He felt that he could do his part to keep people from smoking by simply not selling cigarettes.
This guy sounds like he doesn't want to sell video games to kids for whom video games may be contributing to their problems. The only problem I see is that it wasn't his company, and wasn't his place to set policy.
I would applaud this guy for taking a stand and trying to do good. I hope he opens his own business where he can do his part to help society.
Even when I was in college about 10 years ago, there were a good many laptops, cellphones and PDAs in the classroom.
I think professors could, for most classes, counter these trends with a sign on the door saying, "No non-life supporting electronic devices beyond this point. Violators expelled."
I know that the American university (concept, not AU in DC) has become more of a daycare with ashtrays and STDs than a place of higher education for many, many students, but that doesn't mean that the universities have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Solution:
Decide/accept that your teenage son is mature enough to handle the concept of human sexuality, and understand that exploration is a part of growing up (might be a good time to have a talk); or that he won't access inappropriate sites anyway due to good parenting and respect for limits;
-OR-
Decide that you can't trust your child online, so you put the computer in a high-trafficked area in the house and only turn it on while you can monitor what little Johnny is doing. Violating house rules is a punishable offense in my household. Make it one in yours.
Basically, and I know it's out there but bear with me, I'm suggesting PARENTING YOUR KIDS.