the perceived need for new laws is a result of someone doing something stupid, and then someone else reacting stupidly.
Fixed that for ya.
There doesn't need to be a new law, people simply need to be told that the existing law covers new technologies as well as everything it covered in the past. You can tell them that without passing a new law and wasting taxpayer money.
Your example shows that YOU still do not get it...
I'm around 30 years old, give or take a few. That doesn't have anything to do with this conversation though, except in the same context as Henley's age, which is to try and get a sense of motivation. Henley's motivation, I have no doubt, is purely financial. He's not making new music, it's unlikely that people are still buying his work all that much, and he needs to be able to pay for his mansion(s). He doesn't care one bit about the implications of this legislation, that is my point. I care, because it will impact me and my children. Henley is undoubtedly one of those rich arrogant assholes who thinks as long as he can spend enough money, he and his family can't get into trouble with the law... I don't know anything about him really, but the simple fact that he's clueless about the impacts of this legislation, and is willing to throw his name behind it for a paycheck, makes him a low-life in my book. Unless you can say something that adds value to this conversation, we're done here.
I'd agree, except that you're kinda wrong.... Age has a lot to do with this matter. I really have no idea what Don Henley is up to these days, nor do I care even the slightest. But, given what I do know about him, he's probably not going to be writing/recording/performing many new hit singles these days, and as such, he's probably not going to make as much money in his later years as he may have earlier on. That being the case, he is likely to be looking at alternatives for supplementing that lost income, and one way is to "act" like so many celebrities do. Say what someone wants you to say, make it sound sincere, and get paid a ton based on how popular you may once have been. That's pretty common these days, and it's almost painfully obvious that many of the clowns who take that path don't know or care too much about what they're talking about.
Basically, what I meant was that if someone paid him enough, Don Henley would probably start trying to convince everyone that grass was red and the sky was yellow, because he likes money and wouldn't be affected one way or the other from the spreading of his misinformation.
No one disagreed that you should follow the judge's orders. If he says don't talk about it, then don't. That is simple, just as you say. That part was covered in the laws already in place before this new one. This new one doesn't really add anything of value that wasn't already there. What Mike seems to not "get" is why taxpayer money and elected officials' time needed to be wasted to make a new law that covers what an old one already did. I don't get that either. I'm sure he understands that it's important to follow a judge's orders, but from that sentence in your quote, it's clear to me that he simply isn't sure why the judge would need to order you to not talk about a case...not that he isn't sure why you should have to listen to him, like you seem to think.
I just meant that I believe there are payments/exchanges of cash that aren't reported to those sites. I literally want to know if they dropped a quarter into a bum's cup on the sidewalk, or a dime into someone's guitar case. I want to know of every hundred dollar bill they got in a briefcase at the coffee shop, even the ones that go straight to their off shore bank accounts.
Today my browser was taken over again when I looked away for about 4 seconds to take a bite of my breakfast. This is the main reason I got an ad blocker anyway, so I didn't constantly have to be extra careful about where I put my mouse cursor. When I'm reading something, I move the cursor out of the way, and out of the way is usually where sites put ads. When an add covers my screen in a black window with a 'loading' bar that won't allow me to close it until it finishes loading, it really makes me want to just close the page and not go back. This is only strike 2 for your ads, but one more and it'll be a year or so before I even consider showing them again.
Instead of things that don't require interaction to take over the page, which is really beyond infuriating and flat out unacceptable, play the little video in the ad window upon the mouse over. Some of your ads do that, and they're fine. Don't allow anything to get in my way of reading your posts or the comments unless I specifically ask for it to do so with a click of my mouse.
Oh man oh man.... That's exactly what I was hoping would NOT be the answer. As a native of NH, who loves so much about that great state, I simply can't find words powerful enough to express my disappointment. Where's that old man to watch out for this crap when you really need him...(the one in the mountain that fell... :-( )
I have to apologize, I had assumed you meant limiting wealth for everyone... Limiting it for Government officials (the amount they can take in while in office) is a great idea now that I am thinking about it properly. More important than limiting it though, would be FULL and COMPLETE disclosure of elected officials finances, to the point where they can't drop a quarter into a bums coffee cup without reporting it to the public.
To the other responders, I had said could, and never meant to imply that it always would.
Would have been if you could have excluded patent lawyers from the vote altogether. Their livelihood depends on them, so of course they are going to vote in favor of patents in any and every way they can, regardless of the question. They are so biased it's not even funny, not to mention the fact that they think, because they went through law school and passed a test, that they are smarter than everyone else on the planet...
It would, it does, that is a great suggestion and there is a book or two that I have read that way. There isn't a Kindle App for Linux though, which is what I run at home...
And, for the sake of full disclosure, when using my notebook it's easy for me to get distracted by the lure of the internet. Yes, that's a personal problem, but may be valuable for someone to consider... I can listen to an audiobook while surfing the web, washing dishes, or even vacuuming and dusting...
They're not asking Sununu to pay the additional costs he's trying to make Netflix pay, they're asking him to pay the current costs of Netflix's internet connection, which he claims is nothing (they're getting a 'free ride'). They are basically taunting Sununu, letting him know we all know he's lying through his teeth, and putting him in a lose-lose situation (lose-lose for him, but a win for everyone else). He loses if he admits he was lying, and he loses if he takes the bet, because he'll end up paying a lot more than $500 in just the last quarter of the year.
Re: Says " the 90+ million households who pay to watch".
I am honestly growing tired of your intentional misrepresentations of everything.
I don't subscribe to Fox, and I don't pirate Fox shows (mostly because they're not worth the hard drive space and hassle to get to my TV from my PC). I do, however, pay for Hulu+ (who then pays Fox for their programming) and I do watch the ads. When Mike refers to people who don't subscribe to cable, he's not talking only about the people who don't pay, he's still including those that pay in other ways, which you conveniently ignore because then your contradictory point wouldn't work (if it even does anyway, which I doubt and won't waste my time thinking about).
Fox doesn't care about those who don't subscribe, including me, that is true. Why should they though?? Because I am NOT a pirate, I DO pay and therefore I'm NOT just getting the content for free, and because if Fox continues to strip value away from my means of watching the show, I will stop paying, and stop watching. Then Fox doesn't only lose income, but they lose someone who could have been involved in the free-for-Fox marketing campaign that is word of mouth.
Lastly, that quote you have in your comment stands, you never even hinted at a valid counter-argument, though I suspect you think you did. Stripping benefits away from me and my viewing options did not change anything for cable subscribers. If you think they are currently getting maximum benefit, then they were still getting maximum benefit before, and the change had absolutely NOTHING to do with benefit for anyone except Fox. That, I believe, is Mike's point, and it stands.