We realize you are a boring person Tom just like the majority of us. What is startling to me is that there are so few people in the total population that actually need to be tracked and yet you would be comfortable with everybody being tracked. You seem to suggest that we should change things for the majority based on the minority. That is lunacy!
Thank you AmericaCorrupted - Post #13 for your great quote even you prefer to focus wonderment on the unknowable - what a way to drive yourself crazy.
Next thing on the government to do list:
1.Create Terrorism Insurance so companies can recover from their hurricane losses
2.Continue taxing 80% of Americans and create more benefits for the remaining 20%
3.Tax smokers - an adult pleasure - to help children
4.Require schooling to the age of 18 when majority of kids do not want to learn and actually further the diminution of our school system everyday, hurting the minority who want to learn - because the minority are put through a defective system - as well as the majority who don't want to learn - because they are defecting the system and not learning how to work, which is all they want to do.
5.Oh yeah not to mention, hinder 99.99% of the population with security requirements at airports so that they can catch the .01% of the population that would ever commit a crime on an airplane. Or I suppose that might not work either since criminals don't go through the expensive security systems in the largest cities, but only the small cities like mine where security is a joke! But at least they can waste money on making people feel safer that way.
Apparently wasted money in scrapped projects is just a price to pay for innovation, just as much as famine and death are in war. Everything is expendable, and it all comes down to a bottom line. No one can see past themselves. They see freedom in isolation. Once they have secured their safety, the search ends... Unless they see oportunity to capitalize further.
Thank you for pointing out that trivial matter. It would seem absurd, apparently, for someone to support only certain actions taken by others. With that same logic and mindset, I would either only be able to support the president 100% or 0%, logic and discernment would be non-existant. E.g. "If you don't agree with someone's stance on abortion, you can't agree with their opinion about income taxes." The issues are seperate.
My intention should be clear that I was not attacking legislators in general (Though, in general, I do hate most legislators. Not because they are a legislator, but because I have never heard from a legislator who made normal human sense to me. There's only so much faith I can put in someone who has the job of talking to people for appeasement. It seems like a conflict of interest.). I was putting a satirical spin on how people view legislators today. Just because words come from someone's mouth, or just because words are written on paper, doesn't always mean something. In the case I talked about, there are no ramifications from this law unless parents are not parenting.
I was simply stating the fact that we are all responsible for our children up to a certain age. The generally accepted age is 18 (Whether it says so on paper or not). This is a time when kids are graduating their last required grade for high school. Most kids at this time are already an adult whether or not they have turned 18. The point I was talking about was the responsibility of parents given existing laws (e.g. age of consent statutes), and that laws made after that general fact can be considered null and void. They are of no use because of an already existing, more general, law. It states every child is a child until they are 18 (In your case apparently 17).
Besides the previous obviousness of this comment, the acceptable age for video games seems to be much more of a debatable topic. Mostly because the age for emancipation has historically always been between 14-18. This goes back as far as recorded history can tell us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult is a good site to explain what being an adult is all about. It is more related to physical conditions in the scientific view. The issue of acceptable age for viewing certain video games seems to be, self-evident to me, more based on opinion and again "discernment". This is especially true without the thousands of years' history the "legal adult age," issue carries. Remember video games have been around only since the '60s.
Thanks for your input though, I'm sure other readers were happy to hear from you and dying to hear the helpful info.
I don't think taking copy protection off of CDs makes them less valuable. It should make them more valuable. Value is considered from a buyers standpoint. A CD with less restriction should be more valuable to a consumer, simply because you can do more with it. One could make copies of his/her own CD and not be worried about the original scratching, breaking, etc. This is reason enough to say it has more value. I'm sure you can find some more ways the CD, free of copyright protection, can be considered more valuable.
One more piece of info... When your kid is not around you, you are still their parent. If you have parented your kid, they will probably make choices that are pleasing to you...(To some degree) Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions, even children. But the parent is the one to decide when a child should be allowed to make his/her own decisions. Remember everyone is different, and some kids don't grow up till they're 30. Some kids, like me are grown up(enough to be considered an adult) at age 16.
Of course some of these posts would make more sense if everyone knew what value was. In the context of this article value is ?a numerical quantity measured or assigned or computed.? And so the real question is not the specific value by itself, but a specific value derived by a specific means. Value can be considered what someone is willing to pay for it? This is called a sales-comparison approach to value. Value can be considered by it?s cost to replace? This is called a cost-approach to value. My favorite value approach is the income approach to value used in real estate. This is where the thing being valued is not considered, only the income from the thing being valued (and expenses). Value can be considered by any other number of factors for different purposes, but none make sense without a context. In the instance of this article, value is solely given based on the feelings, thoughts, and motives of the people who have laptops. This is because there is no standard for laptop valuation. One person?s word is as good as the next. Imagine what value we would get for the content of one laptop, if everyone in the world gave it value based on their on criteria and we averaged it out. So we find the number they produced doesn?t mean anything practically.
NEW INFORMATION: Many major credit card companies have been reducing the number of cards issued. I think Congress is proposing a bill to crack down on outrageous consumer debt(Alan Greenspan I think commented on this last year...). http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/default.htm. This came after the recent bankruptcy bill, which was introduced because of the rise in bankruptcy filing rates. They realized that if you require a minimum monthly payment that would actually get the card paid off over time, there will be less cards issued. This is due to how they calculate debt to income ratios. The debt to income ratio is the determing factor in how much credit a person will be approved for. This means people will qualify for a credit amount that actually fits their realistic life-style. Bank of America was one of the first to do this, and I think there are others already following suit. My minimum payment increased about 125% two months ago with my Bank of America Platinum card.
Interesting words without merit. I live 4 miles outside of a city with a population of 80,000+. My internet access is provided through Sprint. I pay $112.56/mo. $23.56 is for taxes! This is outrageous. I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about. Taxes are here. It is happening on a smaller level already.
And just remember... When a legislator says, "This has my stamp of approval! OK for kids." You don't have to let your underage children watch it. You are still their parent and legal guardian all the way up to 18. I'm really not even joking here, but when you got down and dirty in the back of a run-down movie theatre, I bet you never thought a child would be something to take 18 years to do! But it's true. In our country a child is a child until they are 18! So the ruling is completely irrelevant. The whole issue doesn't matter. The bottom line is... "A parent who parents their child will be a good parent." (For definition of parent please contact Webster at their website or me @ crazy.colby@gmail.com.) A parent who doesn't parent their child will not be a good parent. Is it all really this simple when it comes our children and the censorship of their lives?
Hey now, let's not be too hasty and jump to a logical solution. It's quite obvious we need a government official to make personal decisions like what images we want our children to see. Just think about it, if we didn't have legislators like that, every parent would start becoming more and more responsible for their children's upbringing. This is certainly not what America is about. America is about blame, taking, and talking. Example: Hurricanes in the south hit, and everyone in the country first observes, then they start to whine. This is FEMA's fault, Busch's fault, la dee dah, and so on. The whole issue was people being stranded on their roofs in a flood. The cause of this issue was the damn breaking. The cause of the damn breaking was poor preparation for the unfortunate people in that town. I don't hold George Busch responsible for my misfortune. The same way I don't rely on someone on the other side of the country to lead me down the road of fortune. We are ourselves. The only person that can take care of myself, is in fact, myself! It's amazing. Who needs another person to tell them what is allright to watch and not allright, what is acceptable and what is not. I certainly don't want a SENATOR to tell me those sorts of things. If I listened to him, I might actually start to become like him! The last thing I want is to become a person whose career is dependent upon living up to a phony standard built on lies and deceit.
Maybe the whole reason there is a discussion on this webpage is that non-drunk people(sober), are being falsely charged with drunk driving... Or, at the very least, people who are not comitting a crime are being prosecuted for one. It seems to me that the bigger problem is that there is no way for a person to prove his innocense should he be in the right and a cop made the error. To allow a device, which has obvious fallacies, should have never been considered in determing whether somone is charged $8,000+ for being a "drunk driver". Duh? This is along the same lines, in my mind, as the speed photos they have in our town. The pictures do not show nearly enough detail to identify a person conclusively. Innocent until proven guilty? Or innocent until someone else decides your not? Cops, judges, etc. are all actually REAL people. They are prone to all the same mistakes as anyone else. Why would we not have a system in place that accounted for this? The whole underlying system in our government - one which would ensure a government official had no more power than a anyone else, and could not be held above the law - was that of a "checks and balances." I am quite bitter on this subject as I have been harassed by cops for both good and bad reasons. e.g. "bad reason" - Driving home from work at 3:30am, to be pulled over because the cop wants to know what I'm up to at that hour. "good reason" - I ran a yellow light, that could have possibly endangered someone else. The cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket.
It seems we are so powerless to do anything in our own defense anymore. It costs so much for a lawer, court fees, etc. That no person in the majority of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year, can afford a lawyer, missing work, etc. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be innocent. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be guilty.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by commercialretech.
Re: Tom Greenshaw you are Dangerous
We realize you are a boring person Tom just like the majority of us. What is startling to me is that there are so few people in the total population that actually need to be tracked and yet you would be comfortable with everybody being tracked. You seem to suggest that we should change things for the majority based on the minority. That is lunacy!
Thank you AmericaCorrupted - Post #13 for your great quote even you prefer to focus wonderment on the unknowable - what a way to drive yourself crazy.
Next thing on the government to do list:
1.Create Terrorism Insurance so companies can recover from their hurricane losses
2.Continue taxing 80% of Americans and create more benefits for the remaining 20%
3.Tax smokers - an adult pleasure - to help children
4.Require schooling to the age of 18 when majority of kids do not want to learn and actually further the diminution of our school system everyday, hurting the minority who want to learn - because the minority are put through a defective system - as well as the majority who don't want to learn - because they are defecting the system and not learning how to work, which is all they want to do.
5.Oh yeah not to mention, hinder 99.99% of the population with security requirements at airports so that they can catch the .01% of the population that would ever commit a crime on an airplane. Or I suppose that might not work either since criminals don't go through the expensive security systems in the largest cities, but only the small cities like mine where security is a joke! But at least they can waste money on making people feel safer that way.
A Barren Wasteland
Apparently wasted money in scrapped projects is just a price to pay for innovation, just as much as famine and death are in war. Everything is expendable, and it all comes down to a bottom line. No one can see past themselves. They see freedom in isolation. Once they have secured their safety, the search ends... Unless they see oportunity to capitalize further.
Re: Re: No Logic Here!
Thank you for pointing out that trivial matter. It would seem absurd, apparently, for someone to support only certain actions taken by others. With that same logic and mindset, I would either only be able to support the president 100% or 0%, logic and discernment would be non-existant. E.g. "If you don't agree with someone's stance on abortion, you can't agree with their opinion about income taxes." The issues are seperate.
My intention should be clear that I was not attacking legislators in general (Though, in general, I do hate most legislators. Not because they are a legislator, but because I have never heard from a legislator who made normal human sense to me. There's only so much faith I can put in someone who has the job of talking to people for appeasement. It seems like a conflict of interest.). I was putting a satirical spin on how people view legislators today. Just because words come from someone's mouth, or just because words are written on paper, doesn't always mean something. In the case I talked about, there are no ramifications from this law unless parents are not parenting.
I was simply stating the fact that we are all responsible for our children up to a certain age. The generally accepted age is 18 (Whether it says so on paper or not). This is a time when kids are graduating their last required grade for high school. Most kids at this time are already an adult whether or not they have turned 18. The point I was talking about was the responsibility of parents given existing laws (e.g. age of consent statutes), and that laws made after that general fact can be considered null and void. They are of no use because of an already existing, more general, law. It states every child is a child until they are 18 (In your case apparently 17).
Besides the previous obviousness of this comment, the acceptable age for video games seems to be much more of a debatable topic. Mostly because the age for emancipation has historically always been between 14-18. This goes back as far as recorded history can tell us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult is a good site to explain what being an adult is all about. It is more related to physical conditions in the scientific view. The issue of acceptable age for viewing certain video games seems to be, self-evident to me, more based on opinion and again "discernment". This is especially true without the thousands of years' history the "legal adult age," issue carries. Remember video games have been around only since the '60s.
Thanks for your input though, I'm sure other readers were happy to hear from you and dying to hear the helpful info.
Value...
I don't think taking copy protection off of CDs makes them less valuable. It should make them more valuable. Value is considered from a buyers standpoint. A CD with less restriction should be more valuable to a consumer, simply because you can do more with it. One could make copies of his/her own CD and not be worried about the original scratching, breaking, etc. This is reason enough to say it has more value. I'm sure you can find some more ways the CD, free of copyright protection, can be considered more valuable.
Re: perfect play
One more piece of info... When your kid is not around you, you are still their parent. If you have parented your kid, they will probably make choices that are pleasing to you...(To some degree) Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions, even children. But the parent is the one to decide when a child should be allowed to make his/her own decisions. Remember everyone is different, and some kids don't grow up till they're 30. Some kids, like me are grown up(enough to be considered an adult) at age 16.
Re: First Expected Moment
Of course some of these posts would make more sense if everyone knew what value was. In the context of this article value is ?a numerical quantity measured or assigned or computed.? And so the real question is not the specific value by itself, but a specific value derived by a specific means. Value can be considered what someone is willing to pay for it? This is called a sales-comparison approach to value. Value can be considered by it?s cost to replace? This is called a cost-approach to value. My favorite value approach is the income approach to value used in real estate. This is where the thing being valued is not considered, only the income from the thing being valued (and expenses). Value can be considered by any other number of factors for different purposes, but none make sense without a context. In the instance of this article, value is solely given based on the feelings, thoughts, and motives of the people who have laptops. This is because there is no standard for laptop valuation. One person?s word is as good as the next. Imagine what value we would get for the content of one laptop, if everyone in the world gave it value based on their on criteria and we averaged it out. So we find the number they produced doesn?t mean anything practically.
Re: Social Security Numbers
NEW INFORMATION: Many major credit card companies have been reducing the number of cards issued. I think Congress is proposing a bill to crack down on outrageous consumer debt(Alan Greenspan I think commented on this last year...). http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/default.htm. This came after the recent bankruptcy bill, which was introduced because of the rise in bankruptcy filing rates. They realized that if you require a minimum monthly payment that would actually get the card paid off over time, there will be less cards issued. This is due to how they calculate debt to income ratios. The debt to income ratio is the determing factor in how much credit a person will be approved for. This means people will qualify for a credit amount that actually fits their realistic life-style. Bank of America was one of the first to do this, and I think there are others already following suit. My minimum payment increased about 125% two months ago with my Bank of America Platinum card.
Re: Haha!
Interesting words without merit. I live 4 miles outside of a city with a population of 80,000+. My internet access is provided through Sprint. I pay $112.56/mo. $23.56 is for taxes! This is outrageous. I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about. Taxes are here. It is happening on a smaller level already.
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
What an irrelevant comment. I hate your comment, and I love Tech Dirt.
People + Lack of Knowledge + Pride = i.e. Sozialgericht Bremen
Re: No Logic Here!
And just remember... When a legislator says, "This has my stamp of approval! OK for kids." You don't have to let your underage children watch it. You are still their parent and legal guardian all the way up to 18. I'm really not even joking here, but when you got down and dirty in the back of a run-down movie theatre, I bet you never thought a child would be something to take 18 years to do! But it's true. In our country a child is a child until they are 18! So the ruling is completely irrelevant. The whole issue doesn't matter. The bottom line is... "A parent who parents their child will be a good parent." (For definition of parent please contact Webster at their website or me @ crazy.colby@gmail.com.) A parent who doesn't parent their child will not be a good parent. Is it all really this simple when it comes our children and the censorship of their lives?
No Logic Here!
Hey now, let's not be too hasty and jump to a logical solution. It's quite obvious we need a government official to make personal decisions like what images we want our children to see. Just think about it, if we didn't have legislators like that, every parent would start becoming more and more responsible for their children's upbringing. This is certainly not what America is about. America is about blame, taking, and talking. Example: Hurricanes in the south hit, and everyone in the country first observes, then they start to whine. This is FEMA's fault, Busch's fault, la dee dah, and so on. The whole issue was people being stranded on their roofs in a flood. The cause of this issue was the damn breaking. The cause of the damn breaking was poor preparation for the unfortunate people in that town. I don't hold George Busch responsible for my misfortune. The same way I don't rely on someone on the other side of the country to lead me down the road of fortune. We are ourselves. The only person that can take care of myself, is in fact, myself! It's amazing. Who needs another person to tell them what is allright to watch and not allright, what is acceptable and what is not. I certainly don't want a SENATOR to tell me those sorts of things. If I listened to him, I might actually start to become like him! The last thing I want is to become a person whose career is dependent upon living up to a phony standard built on lies and deceit.
Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology
Maybe the whole reason there is a discussion on this webpage is that non-drunk people(sober), are being falsely charged with drunk driving... Or, at the very least, people who are not comitting a crime are being prosecuted for one. It seems to me that the bigger problem is that there is no way for a person to prove his innocense should he be in the right and a cop made the error. To allow a device, which has obvious fallacies, should have never been considered in determing whether somone is charged $8,000+ for being a "drunk driver". Duh? This is along the same lines, in my mind, as the speed photos they have in our town. The pictures do not show nearly enough detail to identify a person conclusively. Innocent until proven guilty? Or innocent until someone else decides your not? Cops, judges, etc. are all actually REAL people. They are prone to all the same mistakes as anyone else. Why would we not have a system in place that accounted for this? The whole underlying system in our government - one which would ensure a government official had no more power than a anyone else, and could not be held above the law - was that of a "checks and balances." I am quite bitter on this subject as I have been harassed by cops for both good and bad reasons. e.g. "bad reason" - Driving home from work at 3:30am, to be pulled over because the cop wants to know what I'm up to at that hour. "good reason" - I ran a yellow light, that could have possibly endangered someone else. The cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket.
It seems we are so powerless to do anything in our own defense anymore. It costs so much for a lawer, court fees, etc. That no person in the majority of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year, can afford a lawyer, missing work, etc. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be innocent. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be guilty.