Slashdot Mirror

I have a feeling alot of these patents are things like http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com/2007/05/ did-microsoft-just-patent-sudo.html

Here is a set of concentrators that run on a single motor. This might reduce PV cost by half though I'd worry about using this where there is snow and ice: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. This is coming to market this year. They are also working on a 2-D array.
--
Get afforadable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Is Microsoft a monster, or just a bogeyman?

It is true that heat retention improves with scale linearly and delta T can be increased with scale, but the cost goes up with volume (linear scale^3). One nice aspect of this system is that you might build it to last a few centuries in the below ground hardware so that the cost per unit time is low. It is difficult though to arrange multi-generational financing of this duration so the first users have to carry the install costs.

PV scales as you say, but the cost comes down a lot with large scale manufaturing, and the cradle-to-cradle-to-cradle aspects of recycling the PV look pretty positive so it carries reduced costs forward but in a way that spreads them without having to work out new finacial instruments.
--
Low risk finance: Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

A Google search will help...

Microsoft Patent Could Hamper E-Mail Authentication Group

John R. Levine provides an analysis

Microsoft patents E-mail addresses as clip-board objects

Microsot patents eternal E-mail

Another link

...seasonal electrical storage isn't feasible.

Do you live in the southern hemisphere? In the north you want PV on the south side.

I agree with you that insulation is one of the best money investments most people can make it they have not already. Canadian building standards have really concentrated on this to great benefit.
--
In 41 US states you can rent grid-tied PV for what you already pay your utility: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. Interstingly, the inverters are one per few panels and on the roof. This is done to help with modularity but now I wonder if many small inverters are cheaper than one big inverter. What drives the cost of the panels down is the scale of maunfacturing.

Amazon tried the same trick at the EPO (see IPKat post here), and got the application kicked out.

I replied incorrectly: You've got a pretty big roof if you can power the rest of the block. Many roofs have enough area to cover the power use in the home they cover, but not all. Probably most in Tucson. If you have Tucson Electric Power you can follow the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html to get solar without the big upfront cost.

Thanks. I'm looking for a number though. For a solar tower you might expect 0.5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower but this project is tweaked. If the heat is being stored, it is still solar power, but delta T may not be so favorable. For corn ethanol, the efficiency is about 0.06%. At this level of efficiency for energy production/storage competes with food production so it is not all that feasable. But, algae get close to PV efficiency http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. So, in terms of land use, I'm trying to figure out where this falls.

I wonder how this would be for growing winter crops as well: is the ground warmed eough? And, if it is, what kind of losses might be expected owing to water evaporation from soil?

I read though the site and found many calculations but I'm trying to figure out the actual efficiency of converting solar energy to electricity. I don't mind if the hot water out gets counted at 100% but I'm guessing that per unit area this does not do as well as silicon PV at 15%. If there is a table that gives this kind of comparison, can someone please point it out? Thanks.
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I did play it and yeah, it has a lot of polish to it in terms of graphics, the core gameplay however was terrible uninteresting, a tiny puzzle here and there doesn't change that and the gravity gun was *heavily* overused, felt more like a physic engine tech-demo then anything else. You can find my in-depth look at the game in my Blog, a little not-so-positve review of Halo1 is in there as well, liked Halo2 much more, but haven't written anything about that yet.

Exploit Chaining means that low risk holes can become high risk hole when combined. Patch them all. Patch them quickly.

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away!
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: (Looks around) Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

(kthx)

'Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.'

- U.S. government mind manipulator, Dr. Jose Delgado, Congressional Record, No. 262E, Vol. 118, 1974.

Consumption of goods and services in increasing. Clearly, people have much more disposable income now than they did in the past. Have you ever talked to people about what life was like in the 1950s, or 1960s? Chances are they didn't have 2 cars, a TV in every room, and didn't eat out 3 nights a week, like your typical middle class family now. The kids didn't have a bedroom filled with toys like they do now.

Consumption of goods and services in increasing. Clearly, people have much more disposable income now than they did in the past.

Debt financed consumption does not count as disposable income. Of course, debt financed consumption must eventually come to an end, so we'll see. Some people have been using ridiculous credit instruments to finance a lifestyle outside of what they could ever possible afford.

Have you ever talked to people about what life was like in the 1950s, or 1960s? Chances are they didn't have 2 cars, a TV in every room, and didn't eat out 3 nights a week, like your typical middle class family now. The kids didn't have a bedroom filled with toys like they do now.

None of that stuff matters. The only important things are:

1. How much was money worth in those days compared to today? Worth being determined not by the amount of worthless consumer junk you can buy, but by it's value versus common commodities.

2. How much was the average working class salary in todays dollars?

3. How much consumer debt were people carrying?

4. How much savings in todays value of money did the average person have (in various age groups, the average 30 year old, for instance)?

I want to let people draw their own conclusions. I have an opinion on what those conclusions should be, but I'll keep them to myself for now.

Well, except for one thing; I believe that the American economy jumped out of a Tech Bubble into a Housing Bubble, and that the Housing Bubble is in the process of ending. I'm not alone..

>Are you using some wierd definition of "poor" that I don't understand?

Perhaps. I expect he means "working poor", ie: Those who are (usually) able to hold their own for basic living expenses (clothing, food, shelter, transportation) but are unable to afford luxuries (houses, cars, savings). The "working poor" has increased as house prices have skyrocketed and left many in apartments that leave them no future hope of having an investment. Yes, there's the old saw of apartments being cheap enough you can safe for the future, but how many of us do? Yes, that one guy that's going to reply will tell me he does. Good for him. The rest of us end up using a house as an investment.

>Home ownership is at an all time high

Due to backloaded mortgages that are now exploding in many people's faces.

>Unemployment is low.

Unemployment considers only those who currently have no job and are looking for work. There are many that are only skilled enough to earn $2.13 per hour in the US. Some of them choose welfare over a job as it pays better (they are not counted). There are also many working for $6.50 per hour who hope to earn as high as $8.00 when they retire. They are also not counted. Although, in all honesty, they should be, as while they are either employed or not looking for work, neither of them is living above desperate poverty.

In the 50s - 70s house prices were much less than they are now, adjusted for wages at the time. This is a very useful set of data as it shows the ease of which the poorest people in the nation could make the most expensive purchase the average person in the nation makes.

Example, using info from these two sites.

1963 - House prices are 14,400 times minimum wage.
1970 - House prices are 16,137 times minimum wage.
1980 - House prices are 20,838 times minimum wage.
1990 - House prices are 32,342 times minimum wage.
2000 - House prices are 32,815 times minimum wage.

They're only worse today. I wouldn't be surprised if the number surpassed 50,000 times minimum wage now. That's 30 years of straight labour at minimum wage to own a house, with not a cent for anything else. With expenses at the bank reccomended 2/3 of your salary, that's 90 years of straight labour. With today's pay, unless you earn at least 2 times minimum wage, it is literally impossible for you to own a home no matter how much effort you put into it. This isn't considering mortgages, which make that 90 years into 200+ years. That's a family with FOUR people earning to make the mortgage payments. Another TWO would need to employed to earn enough to clothe and feed the rest of the family. [At least Muslims have it right by allowing up to 8 wives, that would give enough income to afford to live at minimum wage in a house in the US]. In the 1960s, however, it was possible for anyone to own a home if they were willing to put effort into it.

This is what he means by poor. Unable to own that which is customary for most others to own. Considering minimum wage puts you mathematically unable to own a home, and a vast amount of Americans earn this, they are poor.

I could not agree more with you. With the way things are going, New Hampshire's Primary might be in December or January. http://madampresidenthillaryclinton.blogspot.com/

The blog http://olpc-ceibal.blogspot.com/ has posted an article in English now in response to being Slashdotted.

Some updates to the story:

in response to being linked to by Slashdot the blog, the blogger has included some content in English

and second, blogger Pablo Flores who was in the event, has published the pictures of the event in Picasa:

http://picasaweb.google.es/pflores2/EntregaDeLapto psEnVillaCardal

Hi! I am the mantainer of the blog referred in the article, http://olpc-ceibal.blogspot.com./ First of all, I'd like to invite you to see some pictures of the launching of the project in my last post (I decided to include some contents in english on the blog).

I have seen many interesting comments here. Many of them are part of a discussion that exceeds uruguayan experience, as they are the technological apsects (using XO, Classmate, ITP-C...? using laptops or desktops...?), educational aspects (which contents to use, if all the children will be interested) and, obviously, economical aspects (is it worth spending so much money?... how much will the project really cost?). I just would like to make some comments:
- Not only the educational aspects of the project have to be analyzed. The project also changes the "digital gap", taking into the information society many children and their families.
- The technologies used are not as important as the agreements we have to do for using these technologies. License costs and their renewals, as well as intelectual properties of the contents generated must get up in the table.
- The real effect of a project like this will not be seen in the next days, months, neither in a few years. Maybe in 10 years we will be able to start doing a comprehensive analysis of results. Now we are making "futurology", so it is normal having different views. What is important in this step is the conviction and honesty of stakeholders to try to make things as good as possible.

Regards, Pablo Flores

Hi! I am the mantainer of the blog referred in the article, http://olpc-ceibal.blogspot.com./ First of all, I'd like to invite you to see some pictures of the launching of the project in my last post (I decided to include some contents in english on the blog).

I have seen many interesting comments here. Many of them are part of a discussion that exceeds uruguayan experience, as they are the technological apsects (using XO, Classmate, ITP-C...? using laptops or desktops...?), educational aspects (which contents to use, if all the children will be interested) and, obviously, economical aspects (is it worth spending so much money?... how much will the project really cost?). I just would like to make some comments:
- Not only the educational aspects of the project have to be analyzed. The project also changes the "digital gap", taking into the information society many children and their families.
- The technologies used are not as important as the agreements we have to do for using these technologies. License costs and their renewals, as well as intelectual properties of the contents generated must get up in the table.
- The real effect of a project like this will not be seen in the next days, months, neither in a few years. Maybe in 10 years we will be able to start doing a comprehensive analysis of results. Now we are making "futurology", so it is normal having different views. What is important in this step is the conviction and honesty of stakeholders to try to make things as good as possible.

Regards, Pablo Flores

Hi! I am the mantainer of the blog referred in the article, http://olpc-ceibal.blogspot.com./ First of all, I'd like to invite you to see some pictures of the launching of the project in my last post (I decided to include some contents in english on the blog).

I have seen many interesting comments here. Many of them are part of a discussion that exceeds uruguayan experience, as they are the technological apsects (using XO, Classmate, ITP-C...? using laptops or desktops...?), educational aspects (which contents to use, if all the children will be interested) and, obviously, economical aspects (is it worth spending so much money?... how much will the project really cost?). I just would like to make some comments:
- Not only the educational aspects of the project have to be analyzed. The project also changes the "digital gap", taking into the information society many children and their families.
- The technologies used are not as important as the agreements we have to do for using these technologies. License costs and their renewals, as well as intelectual properties of the contents generated must get up in the table.
- The real effect of a project like this will not be seen in the next days, months, neither in a few years. Maybe in 10 years we will be able to start doing a comprehensive analysis of results. Now we are making "futurology", so it is normal having different views. What is important in this step is the conviction and honesty of stakeholders to try to make things as good as possible.

Regards, Pablo Flores

There was a slashdot conversation on fusion started by this thread: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23438 3&cid=19088821 wondering about why deuterium-deuterium->He4 fusion is not usually considered since there is more He4 than He3 in the universe. These three wiki links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain_r eaction were cited in the discussion. All of these are clear and informative but the most relevant link within the two stellar process links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#Big_B ang_nucleosynthesis does not give detailed reaction chains. So, the answer had to come from a more pedegogical site. There is uneven quality in the wiki that means it is sometimes useful and sometimes less so. As it evolves things will continue to improve.
--
Get proton-proton fusion on your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Actually, the CNO cycle happens at higer energies. The proton-proton chain runs at lower energies. The CNO cycle is favored at high energies because the proton-carbon fusion goes at a faster rate at higher energies than proton-proton fusion despite carbon being rare compared to protons. The CNO cycle does not increase the abundance of these elements. They are relatively more common owing to He fusion wich happens after the hydrogen fuel is exhausted.
--
Get proton-proton chain fusion now! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Most of the helium in the universe was produced as the universe expanded and cooled from a very hot state, so hot and dense that is is thought that the forces of nature had similar strengths (physics was quite different). Once the universe has cooled enough to form deuterium and have it stick around for a little rather than breaking apart again then nucleosynthesis could proceed. The universe is cooling and rapidly so the neutrons are coming from an equilibrium state of about equal to the the protons but they have not had 14 minutes to decay. With all those neutrons around, He3 was turned into He4 and tritium-duetrium fusion also produced He4. There is a d+d->He4 reaction as well but it has a low branching ratio, though, owing to its particular symmetry, it may play a role in cold fusion. This page http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/BBN_ phys/index.html has some diagrams.

This mode of fusion is quite different from the way that stars do fusion because free neutrons are not available. Fusion in stars starts with proton-proton fusion (rare in the big band) or in more massive stars, carbon acts as a catalyst, something that never happened in the big bang.
--
Get fusion now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

"History? Logic? Common sense? The words of the founding fathers? My own experiences as what I would call in my more bold moments an "artist?""

History?

Others have a different interpretation of what we can/have learn(ed) from history, see the links at http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2007/04/patents-vs-fr ee-world.html

Logic?

Others have a different opinion of how logical the patentsystem is. (see links again - or even the myriads of posts on the subject on slasdot)

Common sense?

Well, I don't need to give any comments on that, I suppose. What is common sense for one person is bullocks for another. For instance, I'm quite sure you think you're only talking common sense, while I think you're completely wrong (and vice versa).

"The words of the founding fathers?"

Well, if it *would* be based on that, then it should only be defended if it 'promotes science and the useful arts' - I'm still waiting on any researchpapers that proves this is the case. Because, you know, your 'own experiences' and 'common sense' isn't really a measurement for determining if it's really beneficial to society at large or not (in the sense of creating more innovative works). It's *assumed*, yes. Just as you assume your assertion is true, but without delivering any proof, nor even a scientifically based indication that it is true.

"I said 20 years at most, not "only after 20 years."

OK...so, now that that is cleared up, I'll repeat my question: you base that number on, what, again? Does history show it's after 10 years? Does logic indicate 15 years? Does common sense tells us it's 8 years? Didn't the founding fathers say the term for copyright to be 14 years, with an additional 14 years (which would make for more then 20 years, actually)?

Or could it simply be, whatever number of years you take, it's arbitrary, and not the result of logic, history or common sense? Just as the assertion that it 'needs protection' is completely arbitrary?

Instead of 'common sense' or your personal anecdotes, it would be more convincing if you could show me a scientific paper indicating that what you say has the validity you seem to claim it has. Can you provide such a link?

Because, you know, you might have missed it, but I gave you a whole list of references of researchpapers that indicate that, at least in some fields and for some IP-laws, we don't need the protection *at all*. I therefor doubt that your general remark that 'we need it', can be accepted at face value.

"Sarcasm requires intelligence, and by demonstrating a second grade reading level, you're only making yourself sound stupid."

The fact you realised I was sarcastic, already negates most of the rest of your sentence, since you then must realise that I only *sound* stupid. I'm not sure if *you* only *sound* stupid, but I'll wait with my conclusion on that untill I've read some more posts of you. ;-)

Funny, I just rebutted an oil drum article using rabbits and goats: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html. Goats can do the job quite well, but you've got to have time to take care of them. I grew up partly on goat's milk and consider it superior to cow's milk. The deer here don't seem to be a systematic as goats, so I still mow.
--
Get solar power to control global warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Funny, I just rebutted an oil drum article using rabbits and goats: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html. Goats can do the job quite well, but you've got to have time to take care of them. I grew up partly on goat's milk and consider it superior to cow's milk. The deer here don't seem to be a systematic as goats, so I still mow.
--
Get solar power to control global warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Purdue has been asked to re-open the case, but as of the writing of the article, has not (but I'm sure Purdue will).

You need to look at the history of this story. It is full of coverups, or at least the appearance of coverups. The university seems to have gone to great lengths to keep this under wraps. Bob Park has done a pretty good job covering the progress of this over the years. 1 2 3 4

Cold fusion gets little or no government funding. For the most part people work on in their spare time or have private funding. There was a slashdot article recently http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/0 5/2148217 implying that the Navy was supporting cold fusion research.

Well, yes, in a way. There was some lab space that was used, but the funding level was a few thousand dollars from a discretionary account. No salaries were paid.

I agree with you that diversity in research on fusion should be supported, but I'd extend it even beyond your limit to the DOE idea that focused research in cold fusion using improved instruments should be supported. So far though, I think the DOE is not supporting this kind of work.
--
Harvest fusion on your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Floyd Landis was just one of 18 or so cyclists in last year's Tour de France who was caught on that particular type of drug test.

The other 17 had doctor's notes.

No shit.

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/

"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them?"

Actually, no. The *original* status was: no IP-rights, so it would have to be those that favour the IP-laws that should demonstrate that it *is* beneficial. The main reason the IP-laws came through, is because it was *assumed* that they would be beneficial for the promotion of science and the useful arts. I didn't see any evidence of that neither, let alone that studies were done to evaluate the optimal level of IP-protection to get a maximum of new works and inventions.

It's a bit unfair to demand proof of the beneficiality (if that is a word) of IP rights, when that proof was never asked for of those who wanted it to get instated. Having the IP-rights isn't the normal state: we only have those for the last 200 years of human history, so one can easily argument the question should be reversed: shouldn't those who want to keep the IP-laws demonstrate that it IS beneficial, since *that was the argumentation used to allow them in the first place*?

"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them? Where is the evidence (not anecdotal, real studies) sowing that the current copyright laws and current patent law stifle creativity?"

For a list of references: see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pate nts-manifesto.html

"I've asked this before here, and every time I just get a bunch of replies stating that I am stupid, or a stoolie for the IP lobby, or that I can't see what is so blatantly obvious in front of my face."

Poor you!

Ah, well, that's slashdot for you!

"As you can probably tell, I don't believe that IP laws stifle creativity and progress for society as a whole."

You don't say? ;-)

The problem I have with your kind of type (well, I'm generalising now; you could be the exeption), is that they are never satisfied and always find something to dispute or to ignore, when they *are* confronted with real studies. They never deliver *any* scientific study (to prove otherwise) of their own, but every study that is presented, is deemed incorrect or unvalid or somehow lacking - as if they are all statistical experts who've analysed all those researchpapers. All of those people complaining they never get pointed to real data (with one exeption) either ignored those references/papers, or found it 'not convincing'. Well, duh. Even with a hundred more papers made by scientists, they still wouldn't be convinced - because they don't want to be convinced, and they will not be convinced by data that contradicts their own idea about it.

Whether one is 'convinced' or not, all indications are, that at least in some fields, it IS doing more harm than that it is beneficial (in terms of more creativity and innovation). I'm still waiting to see *one* counter-indication in a true scientific paper that refutes those conclusions.

Hans von Storch is characterized as level headed in the article. He has been involved in a few cortroversies in climate science, but what I like best is that he founded the Donald Duck Club to defend the drake against accusations of indecent behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch.
--
End global warming! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Maybe "interesting" in how he's avoided all the information that's available on the subject that he dismisses as being not available.

For example: temperature data extracted from glacial samples date back 600,000 years. That's enough of a "lifetime" for me. We've exceeded all temperature spikes demonstrated by those samples, and drastically exceeded the average temperature that you're interested in.

I know it's asking a lot to have informed opinions in postings to Slashdot, but Global Climate Change is one of the more well documented issues around.

Please read up all the nice things this person has compiled here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-t alk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

You'd have to take time to travel to that distance so the advantage is erased. I am interested in incredibly large telescopes, which is what you'd need to get that kind of detail. I've begun to wonder of the combined power production data from many solar power systems might be used to study the Sun in more detail, especially helioseismology, or at night to monitor bolides and other bright transients.
--
You might be building the biggest telescope ever: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Actually, you'd like to have it as some distance from Earth because the Earth is warm. At L2 you block both the Sun and Earth with the sun shield and so can make the telescope colder without extra shielding. This is not a big deal for Hubble but it is a big deal for infrared telescopes. Spitzer Space Telescope orbits the Sun on a trailing orbit to get away from the Earth's emissions.
--
Please help cool the Earth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://g27radio.blogspot.com/2007/04/think-youre-s afe.html

That blog is written by a Slashdotter. He posted it in under an identity fraud article a while ago. I linked to his first post.

In short rather that someone stealing his identity to make money, someone stole his identity and used it when arrested. The victim has been turned down for job after job with no reason given. He found out when he was being harassed by the cops and decided to do a search for himself and found numerous warrants, DUIs, etc. Very depressing story considering he's now in his mid 30s and his life has been ruined by 'background checks' and it wasn't even him.

"I am also not sure why the ideal world wouldn't include that the authors and inventors profit from their labors."

Because copyright is a *monopoly* given by *the state*. It's not the states' job to cater to special interest-groups, rather they have the duty to be beneficial for their populace as a whole. Thus, the question from the the perspective of the state should be: 'what benefits most to all the citizens/society as a whole?', NOT 'what financially benefits authors or inventors most?'. The creation of more wealth for a small subgroup of society (certainly when it would actually hamper the creation of new works and inventions), isn't and shouldn't be the goal of the state.

The reason why IP-rights were given in the first place, is the (maybe unvalid) assumption that the financial benefits for the authors/inventors would lead to more works and inventions (e.g. the 'promotion of science and arts'), because from the perspective of the state, the creation of new works and inventions is what's most beneficial for society.

"I think our basic disagreement lies here: if there was no guarantee in the law that an author could profit from his work, I don't think that would be an environment in which the maximum number of works would be created."

I think the parent poster doesn't really disagrees, but he leaves the possibility open. As do I. I rather think it depends on the field it pertains to, and what kind of IP-rights we are talking about (copyright, patents, trademarks,..?). For instance, I think it IS possible for musicians to still make music (making new works), even without copyright on their Cd's. A few exeptions not withstanding, most musicians never see a dime of those sales anyway; they earn most of their money my going on a tour, and give life-performances.

So clearly (and this was what the parent poster was saying), things are not as black&white as you seem to think. It is quite possible that many works would still be made (and even more so, due to derivates) with the abolishing of (some) IP-rights, depending on the field. Others may, indeed, be worse off - in the sense that less works might be produced. the optimal solution is, as the parent poster said, in looking what fields benefit from it (in the same sense), and which not. And another is to look at the maximal benefit for society in determing the level of IP protection (for how long, etc.), even to those were it has been demonstrated to be beneficial.

While many seem to auto-assume it is always beneficial, this is far from substantiated. In fact, many researshpapers indicate the opposite. (see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pate nts-manifesto.html ).

I'll give you LOL:
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/linux-indy-c ar-prototype.html
Fake Steve is one hoot of a blog.

"So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a stifling effect."

It 'does need' protection? It's only after 20 years it starts having a stiffling effect?

And that assertion is based on...what, exactly? Certainly not on the researchpapers that have looked into the matter. (see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pate nts-manifesto.html )

WRONG!!! WHEN CDs came out in the mid 1980s they were about 12-15$, Then they shot up in price after 1994 to around 16-22$...CALSSACTION LAWsuit was filed and just won for price gouging, now they are around the 10-14$ mark or lower depending on if they are on sale. I got my $14 from the lawsuit aboput 4 months ago. http://renigade.blogspot.com/

It definitely need help. The main camera has not been working since June of last year. They did get one channel going in February http://www.stsci.edu/resources/acs.html.
--
Grou nd based solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The imaging will be near infrared with particular capability near 2 microns, but the 5 micron capability is alos of interest. There is also a smaller camera working from 5 to 27 microns. This is mid-infrared. The resolution of this instrument will not be so good because of the longer wavelength. The Keck Telescope can get better image quality. But what it will have is spectroscopic capability and much greater sensitivity. We've gotten quite alot of milage out of the much smaller Spitzer Space Telescope using it's 5--30 micron spectrograph. This new instrument should really open things up, allowing us to analyse stars in galaxies as they were when the universe was 12 billion years younger. All telescopes can be considered time machines, but this one is made to see some of the very first stars. You can read more about it here: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/instruments/.
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

As for your ideas about porn, I think you need to see that it is not as simple as you (or Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon) think. I have watched oodles of porn of all varieties, as have most of my male and some of my female friends. Yet I would personally describe myself as a feminist (just not anti-sex as the aforementioned two, more along the lines of Betty Dodson) and extremely un-misogynist.

Yes, there is horrible misogynist porn on the internet and elsewhere and it makes me wonder just who watches it and it's horrifying. But equally there is some porn that's presents sex really nicely, or just with both genders obviously enjoying the act (a la Annie Sprinkle, Ovidie, etc - look 'em up), or just as complete sexual fun, no politics at all. It's not the case that 'all porn is evil'. It is the case that most people in IT, and on Slashdot watch porn, but I think, from my experience, this group also tends to be less misogynist than the norm... Finally, have a look at this - it ain't porn, but it's a really nice appreciation of cute girls, and there's heaps of stuff like that around... the internet isn't all misogynistic creeps.

You do know that even in this document they're using FUD tactics, don't you. The case where they say "a Dutch court found an individual and numerous Internet service providers" was not won by them at all for example: http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/12/sci entology-v-xs4all-supreme-court.html

I wrote a blog post about this not too long ago. It's funny that this thread came up so soon afterwards.

I got my start in sysadmin work, and then moved over to programming. I've run across my fair share of BOFH, and they make everyone else look bad and probably even work harder. I've found that if I treat my department like a separate company and other people are the customers, that things go more smoothly. That's not to say that you let people run all over you. I suppose I've only worked in small businesses, so I don't know if that would be appropriate for large companies or not.

http://cmunkey.blogspot.com/2007/05/its-public-per ception.html#links

There is a wiki on this, a couple of facilities are already operating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy _storage.
--
Generate peak power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This is just right. Going to a 500 MW/year production facility brings costs down by as much as a factor of 4, but you need the market to be there to risk the large production capacity. The market is arriving now as we see interest in renewable energy for its own sake growing. The effect will be to make renewable energy cheaper than non-renewable energy. What is meant by cheaper? For wind, in the standard way, cheaper delivered as it now is in Texas. I just lost a customer to that which is fine by me. For solar, this means cheaper than delivered power since it is already in place. This thing with time of use rates actually does a big favor for the way we do business. We can rent a customer a system that zeros out their utility bill but does not actually cover all the power they use. It produces at peak so it does not need to owing to the price difference. We charge at about the average rate but for less electricity since the system does not need to be so big. Presto! A big savings for the customer.
--
We're also good if things change since we can adjust the system size again to optimize for a different rate structure.

Where does this leave the utility? In a pretty good place. They'll need to start thinking more about how they can server their customers. What can they do to cover the cost of providing a local two way connection which won't drive customers off the grid entirely? It is a conversation we need to have.
--
Time of use rates mean you save when you rent solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

You can have your own generator and plug some thing into it, but as soon as it is actually connected in with the grid, you have to have an interconnect agreement with the utility. There has to be anti-islanding switching to protect people who are working on the lines during an outage. You can't have a "seemless" system without telling the utility.
--
Solar power without the hassles: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html