Why the fuck did that guy buy such heavy bowls?

This isn't what you'd do if you were on a flight that you knew was going to be intentionally crashed in order to kill everyone on board and everyone where it would hit? If you don't like the guy, fine. But it's been 20 years and, to me, he seems to have changed.
>> ^spoco2:

"If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'"

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with what other people want or need?>> ^VoodooV:

I just really have no need to be that hooked in when it comes to social/leisure things.

We as a society already decided what to do about it and jailed him for a few weeks. After he was released, he turned his life around and is now a successful entertainer and law abiding citizen. He was a shitty kid and a shitty young man. Now he's not.

This man is impossible to caricature.

What would you like him to do?>> ^conan:

Yes. The racist fucker you beats people half to death, then goes to jail two days for it and then living his life being convinced he'd "payed for his mistakes" and that telling folks he hasn't have a problem finding sleep. Fuck him.
Yes i repeat myself on that topic but i have the feeling raising awareness is the least thing i can do, even if it's of no use.

If the only information you get about the US is from sensationalist media and Hollywood entertainment, then you basically have no idea what life is like over here. Consider your sources. Having said that, there are few places in the world where you can run into a crowded room with a sword, steal a purse, make a woman scream, and not make people nervous.

So we're only supposed to work on the single problem that some guy on the internet deems the Most Important Problem In The World? And the MIPITW is that somebody might have gotten away with a single, racially motivated killing? There are many problems that are more important out there. People are getting the living shit slaughtered out of themselves all over the world. People are starving to death, dying of disease, and killing children accused of being witches.

And while we're attempting to solve those, should we just put everything else on hold? Nobody gets to talk about math or science until those problems are fixed? And just what are we supposed to use to fix those problems? Math and science are worth learning just to learn, but even the parts that end up being useful are not always developed just because they're useful. We have no idea where technology will go in the future, so saying that attempting to answer any particular question is a waste of time is just a wild guess.

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

As I said, copyright reform is needed. Also, the media companies have, for the most part, completely mishandled what should have been an incredibly profitable way to deliver their content. I get what you're saying about content creators spreading their own content. They're working on it! But running a business is an entirely different skill set, so distributing through a company that knows what they're doing (to the extent that they actually can pay you) makes more sense most of the time.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

My parents know what pirating is, but they aren't savvy or motivated enough to browse over to PirateBay, run uTorrent, PeerBlock, etc.
However, they ARE savvy enough to fire up YouTube, where they can find "infringing" videos that get around auto-detection by horizontal flipping, etc. etc. etc. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world would love to point at them and the hordes of people like them and and say "pirates! Cough up $1000 for every song/video/whatever"!
In the meantime, I'm living in Thailand. Piracy is my default way of obtaining media. In many if not most cases, it would actually be very difficult or impossible to "legitimately" obtain said media. If that makes me an evil criminal, so be it. But I tend to think that it says much more about the distribution system being broken beyond repair and utterly antiquated than it says about the people like me. The real content creators need to stop listening to (and paying) the AA's crying over spilled milk and start looking for ways to embrace (and fund themselves via) the pervasive and un-policeable internet, which will be the way to distribute their creations. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, the internet isn't going anywhere and nobody will ever be able to stay a step ahead of the pirates.
Maybe 3D printers will become a household item within our lifetimes, but we're a long ways off from Star-Trek like replicators.

The numbers that you're pulling out of your ass don't smell any better than the numbers that he pulled out of his.>> ^jwray:

arrr>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

99% of people who use the internet daily at home are participating in some form of copyright infringement, such as watching unauthorized excerpts of copyrighted works on youtube which are neither brief nor quoted for the sake of commentary. Or downloading and viewing images which were redistributed without the consent of the rightsholder. Or reposting entire news articles in forums. All online communities are full of copyright infringement. The vast majority of the content on the 'Sift is infringing too.

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

So you think that he was being a dick to the police at that moment because he chose to post the video? That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?
Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.
Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)
Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.
Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.

He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:

In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?

Yes, I have and I thought it was an interesting video that I mostly agreed with. I also think it's complete overkill in this situation.
You're not being investigated for murder (which seemed to be the canonical example in the Don't Talk to Cops issue), you're being asked to submit to a breath test while driving. Now if you were at home, at work, or just out in public, I would say get stuffed. But you are literally in control of a vehicle at the time. There's no ambiguity here.