Slashdot Mirror

He's stuffed the Justice department with RIAA lawyers. I'm not going to agree with him on intellectual property, though I don't dislike his policies generally. I guess you can't have everything. By the time he's out of office this problem seems likely to go away no matter what he does - technology doesn't stop just because media moguls want it to.

In this case the particular lawyers are the Justice Department. Oh my, isn't that convenient?

rather an achievement, in between times the airframe and primary structure cracks and it falls out of the sky.

Well, at least you agree it is a novel aircraft. Though perhaps not quite as much as you think; warplanes have been using composites for some time now, so there is good reason to believe it will work. There was a bit of scandal a few years ago when Dan Rather made some very shaky accusations about the Boeing design. Admittedly there is inherently some risk whenever you take a step forward, but that's how we progress. Personally I'll be excited the first time I get to travel on one.

How about an unlocked Nook?

Can Open Source Hardware Work? Banzi seems to think so via http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/16-11/ff_openmanufacturing

Wired had a couple good suggestions in this video: http://www.wired.com/video/gadgets/gadget-lab/46211877001/wish-list-5-toys-that-will-bring-out-your-inner-geek/50864036001

The GeekDad blog from Wired usually has some great sources. In fact they have a holiday buying guide here: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/tag/holiday-gift-guide/ [wired.com].

I do, it is this:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/saturn-hexagon/

and this:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Rotating-Water-Gives-Rise-to-Geometric-Figures-23640.shtml

A couple of things....

First, encryption doesn't guarantee privacy - it just makes it more difficult to read the contents of something. It's a constant one-upping as we use better encryption techniques and get better technology.

The best encryption will probably be laughable in 20 years. Probably less. Look at WEP. Less than 10 years for that to be considered worthless.

From wikipedia....
"...no public-key encryption scheme has been shown to be secure against eavesdroppers with unlimited computational power. Proofs of security for asymmetric key cryptography therefore hold only with respect to computationally-limited adversaries"

So, really, what I've said is correct. It's just a question of degree. If you want to be president of the United States when you are 55, what you said back in an 'encrypted' e-mail when you were 19 about how you hate ______ people; well, that could come back to bite you. Theoretically.

Second, the public key/private key system isn't perfect for the same reason that PGP doesn't really work that great. If you want to communicate with someone you need for *them* to already have a public key.

Let's say you are a famous person, like Tiger Woods and you want to chat up the hottie you met at a golf tournament - and you don't want anyone to see it. Well, the odds of her having a public key/private key pair setup so that you can e-mail her and have her read it....virtually zero.

Third - There have already been demonstrable exploits to SSL. I understand that SSL is just one type of asymmetric encryption; but it's probably the most relevant to our discussion.

Here's an article about one of them.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/kaminsky/

The catch there, isn't that they've managed to crack the encryption algorithm or any of that jazz; but they've found a way around it. It works. It allowed them to impersonate others and get vital, supposedly safe thanks to our asymmetric encryption, data. So, I guess it's only as good as the weakest link?

Fourth - the encryption only protects the content of your message *in transmission*. So, even if that hottie you hit on behind your wife's back does have a public key and can decrypt your encrypted message....you have no control over the security of her PC. It could be compromised in a number of ways. And, if you are a typical user (IE - non techy) there is a reasonable chance that your computer is compromised. And, then you've got the whole 'the recipient' can make copies of whatever you sent. They can decrypt it and post it on the internet, forward it to everyone, take a screen shot, pull out a digital camera and take a picture of the screen and mail it out to everyone.

Bottom line is, nothing we've got even comes close to a guaranteed, lasting, privacy solution.

"...They are likely..."? I believe that a closer reading of TFA would show that m$'s privacy was considered, not yours. I believe that U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson could debate this with you on point. m$ has gone to extreme lengths to disenfranchise itself with its roots; Windows 3.1 vs. OS/2 was a long time ago.

After the passing of the Patriot Act, I heavily invested in companies that made soft comfortable office chairs that sold to Law Enforcement; it was an excellent decision.

some of the 'right wing' publications
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/.../10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/an-inconvenient/
need I go on?

Just ranked dead last in customer satisfaction by Consumer Reports, AT&T also illegally spied on American citizens and then successfully lobbied to get themselves retroactive immunity. Not only will they not be punished, but no one will ever find out the extent of their crimes. Technicians have stumbled into secret rooms used to "shunt its customers' Internet traffic to data-mining equipment" for the NSA.

And don't believe bloated Luke Wilson--many iPhone users I know tell me they have shitty GSM coverage.

Meanwhile, Time Magazine just called the Verizon Droid phone the top gadget of the year and Droid has been rooted, so you know it won't be long before a custom ROM comes our way.

And now AT&T wants to charge for usage? Well, their exclusive contract is almost over with Apple. And if you ask me, not a moment too soon.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/05/67315

Gerson Lehrman Group, a New York consulting firm, estimates that even if 500,000 cars powered by lithium ion batteries were produced in 2015, they would use less than 10 percent of last year's global lithium output. And global output continues to climb.

And there is the fact that salt water has lithium. In fact, some startups are trying to extract it now. If the price goes high enough, it will be practical to extract lithium from the ocean.

Yes, I screwed up.

This is the article that explains how Ebay acquired the stake and why Craigslist is mad.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/04/ebay-says-craig/#previouspost

If you really want to understand how this happened, read this wired story. It will make a lot more sense.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/craigslist-vs-ebay/

Live long, have lots of sex without worrying about giving babies? By jove! Where can I send my money to?

You think that's good? You should try reading Thin! Tan! Hotter Than Hell! You can apparently buy the stuff via web (disclaimer: the above could be a scam, a CIA plant, or a potted plant, I am not affiliated and have not purchased from the prior link) now but I haven't heard one thing about it since reading the above Wired article.

MS started crushing the Google-Yahoo deal months prior to the DOJ antitrust division's meeting through their political lobbying and the usual tactics, it concluded by DOJ picking that deal apart. Now lets see how the new office deals with all those MS donations and astroturfing against Google. Lets see if DOJ kicks this deal too. Why would anyone want to strengthen the second biggest search-engine market competitor and antitrust-laws-breaking firm by giving them the bigger market share and allowing to take out a smaller one?! Lets really take a good look at Obama's office' DOJ decision on this one...

What do you call a vehicle that is limited to 450 cars, that is available in only two states, and even then by invitation only, is not made on a production line, cannot be bought or sold by the driver, and only costs $850 per month though the build cost is over $150,000? Sound like a beta to you? It does to me.

Also, the fact that Wired magazine explicitly refers to it as a beta test might be a dead giveaway: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/07/bmw-mini-e/

Check this out. Wired has an article on Net Neutrality.

Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.

With this definition of "reasonable network management" an ISP would be required to determine the content of packets rather than the type of packets sent. If a user was to send any image it must be determined if that image violates copyright law or whether it is child pornography, etc. The same thing applies audio and video files and streams. Typically that level of spying on customers has not been implemented and could be very costly. And, what will they do about encrypted transmission? Unless the ISP decrypts transmissions how can they know that the "transfer of unlawful content" has not occurred. This has obvious privacy concerns.

There's a PDF link on the Wired site to the 107 page FCC Proposal. Looking at the PDF table of contents you will notice that there should be 185+ pages. Sections IV F forward are missing and I can not find the document on FCC.gov site. Can anyone find the complete document? I would be interested in reading...

F. Reasonable Network Management, Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and Homeland and National Security pg 133
1. Reasonable Network Management pg 135
2. Law Enforcement pg 142
3. Public Safety and Homeland and National Security pg 145

I think people would be more comfortably with Net Neutrality if it did not contain these Patriot Act type things in it.

Check this out. Wired has an article on Net Neutrality.

Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.

With this definition of "reasonable network management" an ISP would be required to determine the content of packets rather than the type of packets sent. If a user was to send any image it must be determined if that image violates copyright law or whether it is child pornography, etc. The same thing applies audio and video files and streams. Typically that level of spying on customers has not been implemented and could be very costly. And, what will they do about encrypted transmission? Unless the ISP decrypts transmissions how can they know that the "transfer of unlawful content" has not occurred. This has obvious privacy concerns.

There's a PDF link on the Wired site to the 107 page FCC Proposal. Looking at the PDF table of contents you will notice that there should be 185+ pages. Sections IV F forward are missing and I can not find the document on FCC.gov site. Can anyone find the complete document? I would be interested in reading...

F. Reasonable Network Management, Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and Homeland and National Security pg 133
1. Reasonable Network Management pg 135
2. Law Enforcement pg 142
3. Public Safety and Homeland and National Security pg 145

I think people would be more comfortably with Net Neutrality if it did not contain these Patriot Act type things in it.

Blocking would be "stupid evil"

There are so many deviously evil ways to get back at Optus that Google can do, with a low chance of getting caught.

Even if it's actually someone else pulling the trigger...

e.g. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/

You think Google can't figure out who is and isn't likely to pull a particular trigger?

Oh and there are plenty more ways that even I can think of :).

p.s. if anyone thinks Google is good they should remember the motto is "Don't be evil", not "Be Good". Somehow so many people seem to think that's aiming high. Perhaps it is by the standards of US corporations, but then that's pretty dismal eh? ;).

they're almost certainly as aware as every other game company that emulation is legal.

That has not stopped them from threatening emulator authors with lawsuits, or from flat-out stating that "Emulators are illegal." I'd have to dig a bit to confirm, but all console video game companies including Nintendo have also maintained that (contrary to the actual word of U.S. copyright law) making backups of your legitimately-purchased games is illegal.

here

This was a big thing a few years back, when everyone seemed to want a small Mac desktop in a "pizza box" form factor. I guess this was pre-Mac Mini. You would get a PowerMac G4 logic board and power supply, and add your own case and accessories. Someone even came up with a concept for a ready made kit called the iBox which was a bring-your-own-logic-board PowerMac system. Not sure if that ever really saw the light of day. I really wanted one.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2003/04/58310

They probably collected it, along with a ton of security cam footage/phone logs/witness testimony/etc., as part of the 9-11 investigation. The real news to me is that the telco's were keeping such extensive logs of all their pager messages and that they were willing to turn it all over without telling the public about it (which would no doubt had been a pretty uncontroversial action if they had just been upfront about it). It points to a pattern of secrecy behind telco/government interaction that's way more disturbing than the information that has probably actually been shared.

It's like the secret rooms that the NSA has been installing at telco hubs. I think that people would have accepted that if the government had simply told the public upfront they were doing it and said "And here are some of the rules we're following to make sure innocent people aren't specifically targeted" (and knowing the CYA aspect of government, I'd bet they do actually have such rules). As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?

"in October last year a Japanese woman was arrested by police after allegedly hacking her virtual husband "to death""

Ok, let's get this corrected. There was no arrest for virtual murder. Repeat: There was no arrest for virtual murder. The woman was arrested for hacking into someone else's account. What she did in game is irrelevant and has just been repeated and twisted over and over for the sake of a sensationalistic "news" story.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/woman-arrested/

Military needs to learn from them, and disguise some military ships as cargo vessels :)

It'd take more than that. The modern pirates tend to know not just which ship is carrying valuable cargo and what it is but also know exactly where it is stowed. You'd have to fake an entire loading terminals' activity at least electronically. It'd be easier to set some Marines on board with particularly valuable cargo.

Loading and load distribution takes into weight and destination, so that containers can be taken off the top, in sequence, while maintaining the balance of the ship. Thousands of containers are routed in what amounts to a packet-switched network of 20- and 40-foot containers. Packing is all done by fairly simple computer programs, which if they are run on Windows are as good a being publicly published for the pirates. Sure it would be possible to bribe someone and get that information, but this is one of the few cases where Windows makes things easier to get.

Yeah you'd like to think so, but you are wrong.

Yeah you'd like to think so, but you are wrong.

Yeah you'd like to think so, but you are wrong.

They have -- in fact, E-Ink has been demonstrating the technology for four years:

http://eink.com/press/releases/pr86.html

and that's not the only similar tech. Wired had a summary of several back in June:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/06/blackandwhite_ebooks/

Commercial availability of E-Ink's color displays is expected in late 2010. I would bet pretty strongly that the Kindle 3 uses 'em.

In today's day and age being so ignorant is ridiculous, when all you need to do is type a few strings in google search to get some information about things you talk about.

OS X is NOT based on BSD, it however has BSD subsystem, among others. If anything it's based on NeXTSTEP, and mach kernel.

And OS X interface bares little resemblance to original classic Mac.

Anyone that's ever even casually used OS X today agrees that if you want UNIX desktop OS today, OS X is the way to go.

Besides people whose opinion I value a lot more than your view endorse it

e.g Bill Joy on Linux and OS X

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/billjoy.html

"Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux."

source : http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/science.html

====== snip======
So it was in 1978 that when the proton beam entered Anatoli Bugorski's skull it measured about 200,000 rads, and when it exited, having collided with the inside of his head, it weighed in at about 300,000 rads. Bugorski, a 36-year-old researcher at the Institute for High Energy Physics in Protvino, was checking a piece of accelerator equipment that had malfunctioned - as had, apparently, the several safety mechanisms. Leaning over the piece of equipment, Bugorski stuck his head in the space through which the beam passes on its way from one part of the accelerator tube to the next and saw a flash brighter than a thousand suns. He felt no pain.

From what we know about radiation, about 500 to 600 rads is enough to kill a person (though we don't know of anyone else who has been exposed to radiation in the form of a proton beam moving at about the speed of sound). The left side of his face swollen beyond recognition, Bugorski was taken to a clinic in Moscow so that doctors could observe his death over the following two to three weeks.

Over the next few days, skin on the back of his head and on his face just next to his left nostril peeled away to reveal the path the beam had burned through the skin, the skull, and the brain tissue. The inside of his head continued to burn away: all the nerves on the left were gone in two years, paralyzing that side of his face. Still, not only did Bugorski not die, but he remained a normally functioning human being, capable even of continuing in science. For the first dozen years, the only real evidence that something had gone neurologically awry were occasional petit mal seizures; over the last few years Bugorski has also had six grand mals. The dividing line of his life goes down the middle of his face: the right side has aged, while the left froze 19 years ago. When he concentrates, he wrinkles only half his forehead.
====== snip======

The "long tail of search" TFA is referring to is explained in this Wired article and on its author's blog.

I didn't go into the details in my original post but here's some evidence to back up what I said about network redundancy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23689-2003Jul7?language=printer

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70040?currentPage=all

If they run a cable to cross a river/chasm via a bridge, it's going to cost a bit to build another bridge just for your cable. They could take the "down" route, but that's not cheap either...

Satellite = high latency. Wireless could be an option (but usually still involves cables at some point).

Even the spooks have troubles with diggers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002114_pf.html

But they sure have a bunch of alert people monitoring their lines (which are probably used to monitor your lines ;) ).

There's an app for that. Oh, wait....

I was already contrarian in yesterday's Chrome thread. Some people are asking "Does Chrome OS Spell the End of Desktop PCs?" I think the thing that's in the most danger of being taken over by Chrome OS is slashdot. Some people will make some interesting builds, and it will be a lot of fun to play with. It's doubtful much more will come of it than that.

But of course Microsoft and their friends at Forrester and Gartner, PC World and news.com.com.com will be declaring it a greater threat to world peace than Scientology, claim it causes genital warts, say that it may damage both your computer and your self esteem. The funniest thing I've seen along this line is this one.

If you had read even the summary, you might have noticed that Apple's problem was not that the smoke constituted improper use, or that it damaged the computers. Their only problem was the fact that having their employees fix said computers would expose them to a "biohazard." Regardless of whether or not smoke causes a buildup of crap on the inside of the computer, which I'm not arguing with at all, Apple should have already provided their employees who are exposed to the harmful chemicals already found in computers.

Ever not get a link right? Sometimes it's a nuisance that you can't edit a posted slashdot post. <sigh> I wouldn't change it though.

handwaving.

As long as I'm following up to fix the link, I might as well point out that this absurd article tries to tar Google's cloud services with Microsoft's T-Mobile Danger brush - as if the two were related in some way other than as polar opposites. That link works better if you're tying Microsoft's cloud services since they're the ones to fire the footgun in that case. They try and say that if you paid for Photoshop on your PC, you're licensed to use it on your netbook. They point out that this alpha OS that's a year from initial release hasn't signed a single cellular provider and doesn't yet support cellular wireless data - even though it was Google that made any-app-you-want any-device-you-want data-only wireless possible. They even quote an analyst from some thinktank I've never heard of (Interpret?). The only way to describe this article is "hit piece". Later let's examine why this author would do this, and who he's trying to help. For now I want to talk about the extremely disruptive nature of this change, in the context of stuff many of you don't konw.

Long ago there was this guy who wanted to make phone calls over radio. He was a bright guy and rigged up the radios to talk to the phone through an acoustic coupler, only to find that "The Phone Company" (at the time there was only one, AT&T) would not permit him to connect his device to a phone on their network. Like any stubborn geek he persisted in his insistence that his equipment could not harm their network. Unlike your common geek he sued all the way to the Supreme Court, gaining fame and support along the way. Ultimately his efforts resulted in the Carterfone decision, and all of the advanced telephony changes we enjoy today including dialup, wireless phones, cellular phones and the Internet, and propelled him to ignonimy. Somebody needs to find this man and reward him for what he's done for us. It is because of his persistence and efforts that the AT&T monopoly was broken and we enjoy the advancements we have today.

Kids today (lawn, get off) are going to have trouble grasping this idea, so let's walk it back and forget some things: Forget tweeting your various stages of pooping. Forget SMS'ing pics of the dead squirrel you found. Forget texting. Forget even calling Mom from the corner that you're going over to Tommy's house to play the latest online game, because none of that is possible. You're like the poor kids who have no cel, except nobody has one so it's NBD. Now forget wandering around the house with the wireless phone, because that wasn't possible either. Now you've got a phone or two in your house if you're not poor but you can only talk on them when you're withing a few feet because there's this coiled wire that connects you to the phone which is either mounted on the wall or attached to the wall with a wire so Mom can hear everything you say - but it gets worse! Mom can't even own this phone - she can't upgrade it to a new model from the store because it doesn't belong to her. She only leases it from the phone company. They don't even have to make new models of phone, because what is she going to do if they don't? The phone company can cut off even this limited access any time they like or charge her anything they like (and they liked a LOT) because they're not just the phone company - they're the phone company. They don't have to care -- that was actually their motto. "We don't have to care: We're the phone company." Oh, the horror! I wanted to rip the onion from my belt and throw it at them to express my disgust.

The whole idea of "push" media spawned back around 1995 with Pointcast, Marimba, BackWeb and others. It was The Next Big Thing(TM) and it was going to change the way we used the internet. Of course at the time most people were still using 28.8K dialup at home and didn't want to wait for an hour while all your new content downloaded as soon as you connected.

Most of this was much more general than just pushing podcasts, but the whole idea of subscribing to a "channel" that updates you and automatically downloads when new content is available is what push media was all about. I could go on, but Wired Magazine headlined this in their March '97 issue, or just google it.

Obama would simply declare all information on the subject a National Security Secret and that would be the last it would see the light of day. Don't be so naive. The US government can do anything we can't stop them from doing, and we can't stop them from doing much.

Of course they built in a backdoor for their own personal uses. Is anyone stupid enough to imagine otherwise? Consider the recent CIA purchase of http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/ In-Q-Tel. Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook. Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere? I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web. East Germany represent!

Every day the United States comes closer and closer to becoming the USSR. A disaster in Afghanistan, monitoring its citizens without a warrant, attacking Christianity, Islam, and other religions, use of secret prisons and torture, central economic planning, the list goes on and on and on and on.

And still the rabid conformists, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/news.2009.593.html murderers of civilization, take out their Two Minutes Hate on the messenger.

But where are all the signs that say he's watching?

I can't speak for Chicago, but in London there are posters like these. I'm not kidding with you - they're actually real. Someone in power has a sick sense of humour and a lot of confidence in what they can get away with.

As a part time Android developer I'm debating jumping ship too. This article sums it up nicely: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/android-fragmentation/ Between dealing with the SDK idiocy of Google, complaint emails from users of 10 different phones all running a different version of Android, and the shitty design of Market itself, the last sentence echoes my thoughts: “I will have to decide then how much return I am getting and if it is worth it.” There has got to be some kind of happy medium between the anarchy of Market and the totalitarianism of App Store.

More information via http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/darpas-liquid-laser-gunship-program-pushes-ahead/

Funny thing about Absinthe...aside from the legends about it, the laws are weird too.

I do believe it really has never been illegal in the US to possess and consume absinthe, but, you couldn't sell it...at least not at what most normal levels of thujone (comes from the wormwood, active ingredient I believe)...and you actually still cannot import most Absinthes.

Also, over the years...Absinthe that has been made...is shit mostly. There is one guy, from New Orleans that really got into it...researched Absinthes, found OLD pre-ban bottles of Absinthe, and analyzed them with mass spectrometers, etc. He has recreated the real stuff, that wins awards in Europe (made in France I believe), but, he can't import most of what he makes.

If you get a chance..try some of his stuff, look here: Jade Liquors. Read what they have there, then look at the reviews of the good stuff he makes.

Now, of course, all Absinthe has a strong licorice taste....if you don't like that, you won't like any of them, but, if you do...then there are Absinthes that are good, but, you'll have to try to import them, or get a friend in EU to send them to you, I've had it done, and never had a problem with customs checking it and catching it.

Oh, here's another older article about Mr. Breaux

"I believe this was all detailed in a Newsweek article about a year ago."

um, you might want to find actual sources with actual studies. Newsweek, like ALL media, is horrible on reporting specifics or understanding issues. Most aren't doing it intentionally, but they are just bad.
Anecdotes are not data, and the media almost entirely moves on anecdotes.

A,C, and D are all valid reasons. I dont' understnad what you meean with B, and E is just a logical Fallacy.

A) If the teacher isn't aware of a problem, they can't correct it.

C) This does happen. You can lead a horse to water...

D) In class rooms of 30+ parental support is critical. Both parental support in class, and at home to help their child outside of class. If your child isn't doing well then you must talk to the teacher and find out what the child needs to do to improve. If it's truly a bad teacher, then odds are just having that conversation will get your child a grade bump. If they are a good teachers, then you get to find out how to help your child.

So many parent's don't do that.

n any case, it's better then a world where any complaint can get a teacher fired, or saying something thats political incorrect.

Even with Unions there have been cases of teachers getting fired for political reasons.
None of these took years or thousands of dollars.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/texas-science-c/
http://digg.com/world_news/Teacher_Fired_for_Saying_the_Bible_Should_Not_Be_Taken_Literally

You have no clue about how things really wor, and you statements that it takes years doesn't stand up to actual facts.

I thought when the copyrights expire the works pass on to the public domain and everyone has full permission to do anything they want with it.

Yes, that's true.

So why/how would the heirs get the copyright for themselves?

Because the copyrights are not expiring. I'd explain, but you could just RTFA, which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.

It's a nice utopia but there's a simple flaw: decreasing the rationality of terrorism is no easier than decreasing the rationality of full-scale war.

That's not to say that you're not right - removing the incentive is key. But it's wise to avoid appeasement as well - and as we didn't have rational policies in place to prevent this outcome, and now face hatred, many, from what I've seen and read, translate reducing motivation into appeasement.

The other problem with the concept is that it's bad enough that the US has been guilty of things - subsequent propaganda enflames things beyond apology or fix.

It's a common myth, for some folks, that we're just all people and that we can all learn to get along. The sad reality is that the world's socio-economic / cultural divides are so incredibly great that that makes many apparently probative solutions wrong. Some cultures simply have batshit crazy values - and both sides of that looking at each other think so.

Then, add in that there will always be another megalomaniac around the corner - history's taught us that. Forget social forces and yadda yadda - the irrational criminal mindset will always exist.

So - the student's example response in Lessig's article sounds great - but it's impractical in the real world.

It requires rationality. Our electorate isn't rational - they don't even vote, much less get non-propaganda education on the issues - so how will our elected officials suddenly be rational? And if we consider mid-East terrorists, driven by a religious oligarchy then they're no better than the oligarchy of our religious right.

Sad.

Some helpful links:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/view_pr.html (scroll down for Lessig's essay)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (spawned Lessig's essay)