the above is also meant to be directed at the green AC (who proposes a not so green plan) rather than the red AC (who agrees with me, so far as i can tell.)
books can be recycled. books never become obsolete due to changing tech. books do not have their contents taken off you because some corporate arsehole decided you didn't own it anymore, books do not require the mining of exotic minerals. books left in the countryside will decay into the enviroment naturally (well, if they've not had the paper treated too heavily), books can be lent, resold, or given away once you're done with them. books do not require a constant supply of electricity (which causes it's own enviormental issues). oh, and if the company cutting trees to make the paper has any concern for their own continued profitability they will be replanting the trees used to make the paper.
so... one point of using chemicals in the manufacturing process (which can be pretty bad for the local enviroment) vs many points of lesser contamination in the manufacturing process, more points of greater and irreprable destruction in raw materials aquisition, and a large quantity of non-recyclable, non-enviroment absorbable waste at the end point of the product's use.
yeah, 'green' would push us towards paper with a greater emphasis on replanting, control of chemicals used, and recyling/reusing the end product. not tech where the various substances involved are so mixed togeather that attempting to refine teh raw materials back out of them is more likely to explode than give you anything useful :S
(also, if this shows up twice, it's because techdirt gave me an error the first time i tried to post it)
mostly because, if the star is any good and not an arse, they've basically got a head start on the 'cwf+rtb' element of things. doesn't change the equation, so much as you only start looking at the process half way through.
so, yes, stars have it easier if they start going it alone, assuming they're stars based on some degree of merit and not pure label/publisher hype. doesn't mean no one else can do it though. just have to work harder to get going in the first place.
so... your point is valid. the usually implied and/or stated conclusions drawn based on that point... not so much.
i seem to remember a few centuries of selective breeding based on it making it partially a physical distinction. (the higher casts in india look positively european, the lower, not so much) being a factor.
also, i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a heck of a lot to double check records. and there's always going to be people who Won't play along.
generally because teh people on the 'pirate side' get fined out of existance for their troubles, or in some cases sent to jail (or in a few extream cases tourtured without ever seeing court)
for things like this, the most that'll happen is an investigation of what actually happened, followed by a coverup.
it really all comes down to consiquences, i guess.
much as i hate to provide support for a stupid position, there's a case to be made for ignoring foreign patents being called 'piracy'.
the term 'Yankee' for people from the USA apparantly comes from the dutch for 'pirate' from the USA's early days when it did exactly that.
unless that's a myth or something.
still, yes, copyright infringement, counterfeitting, trademark violation, violation of patents, and actual piracy (it involves ships, yo.), are all different things and should be labled as such.
well, given that reguardless of colour you can't get further away from black without getting closer to white, and vice versa, and the actual colour in question is more of a sideways thing...
the other colours simply replace grey in the black/grey/white sequence...
so... your objection doesn't make much sense from the point of view of the analogy...
and from any other point of view i can find looks far more like agreement.
ahh, but do the jurors know this, and at what point does it happen?
and is it actually used in a useful manner or is the process of selecting jurors so screwed up that no one capable of doing so in a meaningful way is ever selected, because anyone with the knowledge base to meaningfully do so is, by the current methods of selection, not impartial?
i think you've got 'partial' and 'impartial' mixed up. the 'im' is a negative prefix and 'partial' means 'bias towards, prefering' or something to that effect. (of course, 'impartial' comes up more often so for cases like this people tend to use 'not impartial' rather than 'partial' but whatever.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
they supposedly have opposing biases that cancel each other out.
unfortunately, lawyers are trained in what amounts to rhetoric. juries aren't. which means that, to a point anyway, it's not a contest of evidence and facts, but of skill at misleading... and depth of pocket.
dueling may have it's (many) issues, but at least no one questions where any involved parties stand (err, except maybe litterally)... though the idea of using pistols always struck me as profoundly silly.
it is my opinion that an inquisitorial system makes a heck of a lot more sense than an adversarial one... though it does run into the problem of corrupt judges... mind you, so does the adversarial system, really...
at least an inquisitorial system would solve the stupid corporate tactic of sueing until the other party's lawyers fees bankrupt them even if there's no way to win.
On the post: NYTimes Columnists Telling Readers How To Get Around The Paywall
Re:
On the post: Best Selling Author Turns Down Half A Million Dollar Publishing Contract To Self-Publish
Re: Re: Re: Generation Gap?
On the post: Best Selling Author Turns Down Half A Million Dollar Publishing Contract To Self-Publish
Re: Re: Generation Gap?
so... one point of using chemicals in the manufacturing process (which can be pretty bad for the local enviroment) vs many points of lesser contamination in the manufacturing process, more points of greater and irreprable destruction in raw materials aquisition, and a large quantity of non-recyclable, non-enviroment absorbable waste at the end point of the product's use.
yeah, 'green' would push us towards paper with a greater emphasis on replanting, control of chemicals used, and recyling/reusing the end product. not tech where the various substances involved are so mixed togeather that attempting to refine teh raw materials back out of them is more likely to explode than give you anything useful :S
(also, if this shows up twice, it's because techdirt gave me an error the first time i tried to post it)
On the post: Best Selling Author Turns Down Half A Million Dollar Publishing Contract To Self-Publish
Re:
so, yes, stars have it easier if they start going it alone, assuming they're stars based on some degree of merit and not pure label/publisher hype. doesn't mean no one else can do it though. just have to work harder to get going in the first place.
so... your point is valid. the usually implied and/or stated conclusions drawn based on that point... not so much.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
there's usually a polite way of saying most things without resorting to the hyper formal, at least.
personally i'm not really going to object, (and do find it to be amusing and certainly fit the situation) but the point is valid.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: I've never understood..
also, i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a heck of a lot to double check records. and there's always going to be people who Won't play along.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Re:
for things like this, the most that'll happen is an investigation of what actually happened, followed by a coverup.
it really all comes down to consiquences, i guess.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re:
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Argument
the term 'Yankee' for people from the USA apparantly comes from the dutch for 'pirate' from the USA's early days when it did exactly that.
unless that's a myth or something.
still, yes, copyright infringement, counterfeitting, trademark violation, violation of patents, and actual piracy (it involves ships, yo.), are all different things and should be labled as such.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Re: Argument
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
they do this by being put in control of said industry.
(... not even I'm sure if this is a joke or not :S )
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: At odds...
the other colours simply replace grey in the black/grey/white sequence...
so... your objection doesn't make much sense from the point of view of the analogy...
and from any other point of view i can find looks far more like agreement.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
and is it actually used in a useful manner or is the process of selecting jurors so screwed up that no one capable of doing so in a meaningful way is ever selected, because anyone with the knowledge base to meaningfully do so is, by the current methods of selection, not impartial?
significant factors all, i think.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Mike is mistaken about what it means to be "informed jury"
certainly the ideal for a juror though.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Everyone has preconceived notions..
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
useful.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: I almost agreed with the first AC
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re:
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
unfortunately, lawyers are trained in what amounts to rhetoric. juries aren't. which means that, to a point anyway, it's not a contest of evidence and facts, but of skill at misleading... and depth of pocket.
dueling may have it's (many) issues, but at least no one questions where any involved parties stand (err, except maybe litterally)... though the idea of using pistols always struck me as profoundly silly.
it is my opinion that an inquisitorial system makes a heck of a lot more sense than an adversarial one... though it does run into the problem of corrupt judges... mind you, so does the adversarial system, really...
at least an inquisitorial system would solve the stupid corporate tactic of sueing until the other party's lawyers fees bankrupt them even if there's no way to win.
Next >>