The point is that no matter what the regulation, no matter how well meaning it is, no matter how thought out it is, it favors larger companies over smaller companies. Government regulation inherently favors large corporations over small companies.
You are the one who says that it is possible for regulation to not favor big companies. I am telling you that is not so. I at no time said that there should be no regulation. You cannot regulate small businesses into existence, but you can regulate them out of business.
No, I am suggesting that politicians are interested in increasing their power. Anthropogenic Global Warming offers them an opportunity to do so. As to multinational companies that invest in election campaigns, are you suggesting that only companies with a significant investment in oil do so? That would certainly be news to GE (which has a significant interest in increased government funding for "green" technology).
The House, which is controlled by the Republicans, passed a bill with funding for this program. Sorry, your argument that the Democrats didn't include funding for this program because otherwise the Republicans would filibuster it does not hold up to examination. The only way that a filibuster would work would be for the Republicans to oppose it either overwhelmingly, or for opposition to it to be a matter of Party discipline. In either case, the provision would not have made it through the House. Since the provision made it through the House, the responsibility for this provision not being in the Senate version rests squarely on the Democrats, with no logical way to shift it to the Republicans.
Something like that has been done. There was a case where a cellphone tower was put in and someone near it complained about how it had caused him/her all sorts of physical woes. My recollection is that it turned out that it had not yet been powered up. However, it might have been that they had turned it on for tests and then shut it down and by the time the guy learned that it was there it had been turned off for several months.
I do know they have done several tests where people who claim this sensitivity have been asked to identify when a EM source was on or off, and their report of symptoms had no relationship with whether or not the EM source was emitting EM radiation.
I think the increased incidence of these sorts of things has a three fold cause. The first is that a significant number of the people who suffer from genuine problems (such as severe allergies) would have died from them or something else at a very young age in the past. The second is that the threshold for diagnosis of certain disorders have been lowered (diabetes and autism are two examples). This does not account for all of the increase in the incidence of those disorders, but it accounts for a significant portion of it. The third cause is that improved communication allows people to become aware that symptoms they are experiencing are related to real problems and to become aware of crackpots claiming to suffer from some imaginary malady.
In the ordinary course of things, the vast majority of crackpots have their ideas rejected by those around them and they either abandon them or learn to keep relatively quiet about them. There have always been a few that because of random chance happen to be in an area where people take their ideas seriously. In the past, these few tended to remain isolated. With the advent of modern communication, these crackpots have been able to more readily find those people who are a receptive audience for thier ideas, allowing a greater distribution of those crackpot ideas.
Of course, at the same time, many good ideas that in the past were suppressed by those who controlled communication are also able to spread more easily. Overall, it has become harder to control which ideas gain acceptance which makes it harder to manipulate and control the populace.
the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?
The thing is, it becoems suspicious when new science supports the pre-existing policy positions of those who are claiming that the science demands that we adopt those policy positions, especially when that new science arrives on the scene right at the point when their previous argument as to why we "must" adopt those policies has been proven wrong.
If you can't see that it is totally insane to continue using 100W light bulbs, there is no hope for any of us.
If you think it is insane (to any degree) to continue using 100W light bulbs, there is no hope of having a reasoned discussion with you because you are either not capable of reasoned thought, or are unwilling to reason.
I wish I had mod points. This is the problem I have with this action by the Authors' Guild. They are rent seekers, trying to create and then capitalize on the preception that they represent all authors. Currently, they act as if they are perfectly happy to let any who choose opt out of that representation. However, that is not how it should work, they should be required to show that the authors they claim to represent have opted in to that representation. Of course, if they could find the authors in question, then the people who wish to digitize these works could contact said authors and negotiate permission (or be denied permission). The Authors' Guild is trying to get money for reproduction of copyrighted works that they do not represent the holders of copyright.
You are correct that the majority of work currently under copyright is not worth preserving (although your example is irelevant to the discussion). The problem is that there is no good way to distinguish which are and which aren't because of the length of copyright. If copyright lasted for a reasonable length of time, people would naturally preserve those that were worth the effort.
The problem is that the Authors' Guild is trying to become the clearinghouse for permission to copy copyrighted books when you cannot find the copyright holder. If the Authors' Guild was only trying to represent their actual members, I would not have a problem. However, in the Google case the Authors' Guild took the position that they were representing all authors except those that opted out of their representation.
I'm sorry, but your top three priorities are not "spin-offs". In this case, the head of NASA is saying that things that might be legitimate secondary goals ("spin-offs") are actually his top priorities. So, I find it unreasonable.
The NASA Administrator said that Obama told him he wanted him to do three things "third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to Muslim nations..." http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/07/201071122234471970.html This is at about 1:20. The only one of the three things that belongs in the NASA Administrator's purview is the first one.
Yes, Florida is a swing state, but current polling (combined with last year's election results) suggests that it will swing Republican next year.
Upon what do you base your belief that Senate Republicans are responsible for this spending cut? The Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party. The House, which is controlled by the Republicans, passed an appropriations bill which funded this program.
I agree that $300 is not low enough. However, I think that getting the price under $200 would be good enough. I'm not sure I would buy a tablet at that price, but I would look at it. At $300, I'm not interested.
The article refers to the Senate approprations bill. Are you aware that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats? Which means that this appropriations bill was almost certainly written by a Democrat staffer.
It was an Obama appointee to head NASA who said that his number one priority as head of NASA was outreach to Muslims. That sort of priorities on the part of the Administration might explain why NASA is being dismantled. Well, that combined with the fact that most NASA employees are in Texas and Florida, states that most likely will vote against Obama next year (OK, Texas will certainly vote against Obama, and Florida will likely vote against Obama).
You do know that Microsoft tried the idea of a separate OS for enterprise and home users once already. That is what lead to the Windows ME fiasco. That being said, I suspect that there should be some separation between the OS for tablets and the OS for PCs (laptop or desktop). However, that can probably be accomplished much like the way they have arrived at separation between home users and enterprise users by the Home, Professional, Ultimate divide they have in Windows 7.
What "baseless assumptions" was I making, you are the one who said the course had 650 students a semester. At what students pay at a university today, if all they have is a TA to read and review the papers of 50 students in an upper level class, they are being ripped off.
Of course the real problem is that most of those students were not paying for an education, they were paying for a piece of paper that they needed to get a decent job (or at least what they perceive to be a decent job). If they were really paying for the education, the idea of plagiarizing the papers would be like going to the store and paying for a high quality piece of merchandise and sneaking out with a cheap knock-off.
My personal idea is that the goal of copyright is/should be about remuneration, not control.
I tend to agree that it should be about remuneration (although I am not solidly in that camp for various reasons). However, it is not just about remuneration, but, also, about control.
What is "Apex Tech"? Oh never mind, I just googled it and see that it is located in New York City. I understand now, you are one of those people who have spent their whole life in New York City and think that makes you cosmopolitan.
I love the way you call me an anarchist because I don't believe that the government is the best means to take care of people in need. I happen to believe that the purpose of government is to maintain order. The best way to take care of people in need is for individuals to help other individuals.
As to the idea that with limited government corporations have more power, I have a question. Are corporations more, or less, powerful today than they were 50 years ago? Second question, does the government have more, or less, regulations today than it did 50 years ago?
Would you suggest we're being lazy in using Turnitin.com to check for plagiarism of that sort?
No, the OP is suggesting that your university was ripping those students off. I would agree. What is the point of having those students write those papers if over the course of three essays in a semester you cannot learn to recognize a student's particular writing style and thus realize that one or more of the papers was not actually written by the same person as the others (if they are plagiarizing, it is unlikely that they will get all three papers from the same source).
Of course, my experience in college suggests that any class that large is worthless anyway.
Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.
I agreed with you until this point. At which time I realized the critic of Apple's new campus might have a point. The reason that is the case is that university campuses tend to promote "global social responsibility" that absolves those in them from actually doing anything themselves about the problems around them. The products of university "global social responsibility" demand that the government do something, thus they do not need to dedicate their own resources to attempting to address the problems themselves.
No, they probably calculate that the risk to their fortune is minimal, so there is no harm from promoting the government policies involved if the Alarmists prove to be wrong.
Liberalism is based on the belief that if we all do what is best for ourselves, that will lead to the best overall outcome for us all.
That is actually the position taken by those called conservatives in U.S. politics. Those called "liberals" in U.S. politics take the position that the overwhelming majority of people are too stupid to make decisions as to what is best for them, therefore "experts" in government must make those decisions for them. Of course, they never quite explain why I should think these "experts" will make better decisions for me than I would. The evidence suggests to me that the "experts" the government hires to make these decisions are drawn from the group of people whose decisions are used as examples of why "experts" should be given the authority to make decisions for people.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that no matter what the regulation, no matter how well meaning it is, no matter how thought out it is, it favors larger companies over smaller companies. Government regulation inherently favors large corporations over small companies.
You are the one who says that it is possible for regulation to not favor big companies. I am telling you that is not so. I at no time said that there should be no regulation. You cannot regulate small businesses into existence, but you can regulate them out of business.
No, I am suggesting that politicians are interested in increasing their power. Anthropogenic Global Warming offers them an opportunity to do so. As to multinational companies that invest in election campaigns, are you suggesting that only companies with a significant investment in oil do so? That would certainly be news to GE (which has a significant interest in increased government funding for "green" technology).
The House, which is controlled by the Republicans, passed a bill with funding for this program. Sorry, your argument that the Democrats didn't include funding for this program because otherwise the Republicans would filibuster it does not hold up to examination. The only way that a filibuster would work would be for the Republicans to oppose it either overwhelmingly, or for opposition to it to be a matter of Party discipline. In either case, the provision would not have made it through the House. Since the provision made it through the House, the responsibility for this provision not being in the Senate version rests squarely on the Democrats, with no logical way to shift it to the Republicans.
Something like that has been done. There was a case where a cellphone tower was put in and someone near it complained about how it had caused him/her all sorts of physical woes. My recollection is that it turned out that it had not yet been powered up. However, it might have been that they had turned it on for tests and then shut it down and by the time the guy learned that it was there it had been turned off for several months.
I do know they have done several tests where people who claim this sensitivity have been asked to identify when a EM source was on or off, and their report of symptoms had no relationship with whether or not the EM source was emitting EM radiation.
I think the increased incidence of these sorts of things has a three fold cause. The first is that a significant number of the people who suffer from genuine problems (such as severe allergies) would have died from them or something else at a very young age in the past. The second is that the threshold for diagnosis of certain disorders have been lowered (diabetes and autism are two examples). This does not account for all of the increase in the incidence of those disorders, but it accounts for a significant portion of it. The third cause is that improved communication allows people to become aware that symptoms they are experiencing are related to real problems and to become aware of crackpots claiming to suffer from some imaginary malady.
In the ordinary course of things, the vast majority of crackpots have their ideas rejected by those around them and they either abandon them or learn to keep relatively quiet about them. There have always been a few that because of random chance happen to be in an area where people take their ideas seriously. In the past, these few tended to remain isolated. With the advent of modern communication, these crackpots have been able to more readily find those people who are a receptive audience for thier ideas, allowing a greater distribution of those crackpot ideas.
Of course, at the same time, many good ideas that in the past were suppressed by those who controlled communication are also able to spread more easily. Overall, it has become harder to control which ideas gain acceptance which makes it harder to manipulate and control the populace.
Do you think that the academic left have vastly superior resources to the entire petro-checmical industry?
No, but politicians do.
the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?
The thing is, it becoems suspicious when new science supports the pre-existing policy positions of those who are claiming that the science demands that we adopt those policy positions, especially when that new science arrives on the scene right at the point when their previous argument as to why we "must" adopt those policies has been proven wrong.
If you can't see that it is totally insane to continue using 100W light bulbs, there is no hope for any of us.
If you think it is insane (to any degree) to continue using 100W light bulbs, there is no hope of having a reasoned discussion with you because you are either not capable of reasoned thought, or are unwilling to reason.
I wish I had mod points. This is the problem I have with this action by the Authors' Guild. They are rent seekers, trying to create and then capitalize on the preception that they represent all authors. Currently, they act as if they are perfectly happy to let any who choose opt out of that representation. However, that is not how it should work, they should be required to show that the authors they claim to represent have opted in to that representation. Of course, if they could find the authors in question, then the people who wish to digitize these works could contact said authors and negotiate permission (or be denied permission). The Authors' Guild is trying to get money for reproduction of copyrighted works that they do not represent the holders of copyright.
You are correct that the majority of work currently under copyright is not worth preserving (although your example is irelevant to the discussion). The problem is that there is no good way to distinguish which are and which aren't because of the length of copyright. If copyright lasted for a reasonable length of time, people would naturally preserve those that were worth the effort.
The problem is that the Authors' Guild is trying to become the clearinghouse for permission to copy copyrighted books when you cannot find the copyright holder. If the Authors' Guild was only trying to represent their actual members, I would not have a problem. However, in the Google case the Authors' Guild took the position that they were representing all authors except those that opted out of their representation.
I'm sorry, but your top three priorities are not "spin-offs". In this case, the head of NASA is saying that things that might be legitimate secondary goals ("spin-offs") are actually his top priorities. So, I find it unreasonable.
The House voted to appropriate the funds to continue this program.
The NASA Administrator said that Obama told him he wanted him to do three things "third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to Muslim nations..." http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/07/201071122234471970.html This is at about 1:20. The only one of the three things that belongs in the NASA Administrator's purview is the first one.
Yes, Florida is a swing state, but current polling (combined with last year's election results) suggests that it will swing Republican next year.
Upon what do you base your belief that Senate Republicans are responsible for this spending cut? The Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party. The House, which is controlled by the Republicans, passed an appropriations bill which funded this program.
I agree that $300 is not low enough. However, I think that getting the price under $200 would be good enough. I'm not sure I would buy a tablet at that price, but I would look at it. At $300, I'm not interested.
The article refers to the Senate approprations bill. Are you aware that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats? Which means that this appropriations bill was almost certainly written by a Democrat staffer.
It was an Obama appointee to head NASA who said that his number one priority as head of NASA was outreach to Muslims. That sort of priorities on the part of the Administration might explain why NASA is being dismantled. Well, that combined with the fact that most NASA employees are in Texas and Florida, states that most likely will vote against Obama next year (OK, Texas will certainly vote against Obama, and Florida will likely vote against Obama).
You do know that Microsoft tried the idea of a separate OS for enterprise and home users once already. That is what lead to the Windows ME fiasco. That being said, I suspect that there should be some separation between the OS for tablets and the OS for PCs (laptop or desktop). However, that can probably be accomplished much like the way they have arrived at separation between home users and enterprise users by the Home, Professional, Ultimate divide they have in Windows 7.
What "baseless assumptions" was I making, you are the one who said the course had 650 students a semester. At what students pay at a university today, if all they have is a TA to read and review the papers of 50 students in an upper level class, they are being ripped off.
Of course the real problem is that most of those students were not paying for an education, they were paying for a piece of paper that they needed to get a decent job (or at least what they perceive to be a decent job). If they were really paying for the education, the idea of plagiarizing the papers would be like going to the store and paying for a high quality piece of merchandise and sneaking out with a cheap knock-off.
My personal idea is that the goal of copyright is/should be about remuneration, not control.
I tend to agree that it should be about remuneration (although I am not solidly in that camp for various reasons). However, it is not just about remuneration, but, also, about control.
What is "Apex Tech"? Oh never mind, I just googled it and see that it is located in New York City. I understand now, you are one of those people who have spent their whole life in New York City and think that makes you cosmopolitan.
I love the way you call me an anarchist because I don't believe that the government is the best means to take care of people in need. I happen to believe that the purpose of government is to maintain order. The best way to take care of people in need is for individuals to help other individuals.
As to the idea that with limited government corporations have more power, I have a question. Are corporations more, or less, powerful today than they were 50 years ago? Second question, does the government have more, or less, regulations today than it did 50 years ago?
Would you suggest we're being lazy in using Turnitin.com to check for plagiarism of that sort?
No, the OP is suggesting that your university was ripping those students off. I would agree. What is the point of having those students write those papers if over the course of three essays in a semester you cannot learn to recognize a student's particular writing style and thus realize that one or more of the papers was not actually written by the same person as the others (if they are plagiarizing, it is unlikely that they will get all three papers from the same source).
Of course, my experience in college suggests that any class that large is worthless anyway.
Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.
I agreed with you until this point. At which time I realized the critic of Apple's new campus might have a point. The reason that is the case is that university campuses tend to promote "global social responsibility" that absolves those in them from actually doing anything themselves about the problems around them. The products of university "global social responsibility" demand that the government do something, thus they do not need to dedicate their own resources to attempting to address the problems themselves.
Liberalism is based on the belief that if we all do what is best for ourselves, that will lead to the best overall outcome for us all.
That is actually the position taken by those called conservatives in U.S. politics. Those called "liberals" in U.S. politics take the position that the overwhelming majority of people are too stupid to make decisions as to what is best for them, therefore "experts" in government must make those decisions for them. Of course, they never quite explain why I should think these "experts" will make better decisions for me than I would. The evidence suggests to me that the "experts" the government hires to make these decisions are drawn from the group of people whose decisions are used as examples of why "experts" should be given the authority to make decisions for people.