A lot of what you suggest is goofy nonsense, but I like one idea very much.
Make copyright law draconian, but make the plaintiff compensate the wrongfully accused defendant three times his actual attorney fees plus any damages and any pain and suffering.
The RIAA would actually have to investigate claims before making them. That would be a big improvement.
It isn't only about guilt or innocence. It is also about who the airlines allow to fly on their planes.
Every American has the lawful ability to amass an arsenal of devastating force. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! It is only fair that the airlines have the right to be selective in the matter of plane passengers.
Yeah. Watching reruns of Ali doing the 'rope-a-dope' against George Foreman is watching irreversible horrible trauma as it was inflicted.
Saying boxing is not a sport just because you think it is barbaric is ridiculous, though. It is attractive to people because it is a blood sport. You're just misusing language in an attempt to make your point. I happen to agree that boxing has no place in a civilized society, but I'd rather see straightforward and honest arguments used to facilitate its demise.
Once, as a young prosecutor, I asked what the big deal was about child rape. I was so naive and ignorant. That naivete was extinguished (to my embarrassment) when I was told of infant rape victims.
We are all naive and ignorant about important things. You are no exception. So please don't take it too bad when I say the following:
You idiot! Don't you know that a HUGE proportion of the homeless are MENTALLY ILL? Their CHOICE is often between living on the street (cheaply) or living in an institution (at great cost)?
We will only colonize when it is cheap. It will only be cheap if colonization spins off tech that is already useful on Earth.
I don't think colonization needs to be energy intensive. Maybe a reliable power supply, freakishly powerful AI, and stupendous nanotech would be enough to get things started. Send out seedpods . . .
I don't think just the rich will go. Take some time to reflect upon what wealth is. It's not just dollars in the bank or a big pile of material. That shit gets old fast.
The major component of wealth is POWER--the ability to get people to do stuff that you (and they) would rather not do. Compare Louis XIV and a lower middle class family in the US today. If you look at what Louis had and what the family has (stuff), the relative wealth is debatable. If you look at prestige (power), it is not even close.
The rich won't go out into space until they have drones that they can lord over in some kind of aristocracy/oligarchy. Working men and entrepreneurs will get their shot (although labor laws will be a bitch to enforce). But my point is that space colonization will not be for the rich alone.
There are few Generals with comprehensive intelligence. A lot of them are jacked-up little men who have developed skill in only a narrow range of activity. They learn when they get slapped upside the head, usually not before.
They'll come round, eventually. But by then, though, circumstances will change again and they'll get slapped upside the head all over again. And soldiers die.
Do you actually drive? Don't you know how many stupid drivers there are? I don't mean a little bit stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. What are you going to do? Make them un-stupid?
Making cars safer is the only way. These stupid drivers are not dangerous only to themselves--they are dangerous to passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers.
While the Merlin made the P-51, and the P-51 made precision bombing over Germany, precision bombing was not critical to winning the war in Europe. It was definitely helpful, but not necessary to victory. Very good arguments can be made that air resources would have been better allocated to operational and tactical commands.
I like the Merlin engine idea. It evokes an image of good British engineering (drawing on the noble past you cite).
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Clearly, we are not talking about the reproduction of an identification card or a badge. We are talking about an "or other insignia."
The FBI is apparently taking the position that "or other insignia" means just what it (alone) says.
The Wikipedia people are taking the position that you have to read the last clause of the sentence in the context of the entire sentence--in other words, that when Congress used "or other insignia," they meant that badges and identification cards are a kind of insignia and that "or other insignia" was meant to include only "other insignia" that are like badges or identification cards. This is very good argument that employs an interpretive tool (ejusdem generis) that is commonly used by the courts. You can make a very good argument that the seal for an entire agency is not an insignia of the same class as a badge or identification card used to identify an FBI agent.
A huge problem with the federales' position is that the statute involved is a criminal statute. Judges resolve doubts in the interpretation of a criminal statute in favor of the defendant. That is called the rule of lenity.
Wikileaks can buttress its best arguments with all kinds of slippery slope arguments. For example, does a tourist commit a crime when he takes a photograph of the FBI seal? When he gives it to his grandmother? When he posts it on Flickr?
When you're fired, your job is OVER. Your right to exercise control over the City's stuff is DONE.
Terry Childs is a stupid, neurotic fool. But there's no indication that he's a thief or a scumbag. He's been punished way more than enough by now. I hope the judge gives him credit for time served and ends this.
What do you mean by "attribute?" Are you purposely trying to be obscure, or are you doing the William Shakespeare made-up-word thing?
It is difficult for me to conceive of how a mere concept (i.e., man-made or "anthropogenic" changes) can "attribute" to global warming.
Even if the concept was a very "hot" idea, it still wouldn't attribute to global warming. It might "contribute," that's for sure. And a human being could attribute the hot idea to global warming (or vice versa). But always, the the hot idea would be incapable of attributing itself to something else. Unless, of course, the William Shakespeare mode is operative.
Please forgive the patronizing tone. I'm borrowing it from the tone of your post.
When everybody can afford a high quality material printer and CNC milling machine/router, then we will be in the post-industrial economy. I don't think we're quite there yet. THAT kind of productive power might change everything.
While you can't have a free market without regulation, too much regulation (often pushed by dominant predatory players) will destroy the free market just as effectively. That's the kind of situation you are describing. I'm not arguing that regulation is a cure-all--it is medicine that can cure as well as kill. It's like a sailboat, you've constantly got to be trimming the sails in response to changes in the weather.
Your argument that cottage industries are a sign of a free market is ridiculous. A cottage industry worker was one of the most oppressed people in the world. They were little better than slaves. They got paid the bare minimum and were among the first to starve.
Your free market talk only makes sense if people are considered chattels.
If you don't regulate the free market, the workers get oppressed. Unregulated business knows no boundaries (think the slave trade and the opium trade). When workers get too oppressed, they rebel and destabilize everything. Regulation follows . . .
A free market cannot be a static thing. It has to be regulated or it will inevitably go out of whack.
In an unregulated environment, the free market is only a transitory stage on the way to a marketplace dictated by trusts and cartels.
Foolish people don't realize that a market must be regulated to remain free. If the market is totally free, the most dominant and predatory businesses will destroy the smaller ones and then use their uncontested market power to create an "unfree" market that minimizes competition and decreases the cost of production (like wages). Late nineteenth century/early twentieth century history provides many examples of this (look at the railroads!).
So, when you compare the free market to gravity or evolution, you are just being silly.
I do agree that this is a free market situation, though. It looks like a certain category of designers is way overpricing themselves. This appears analogous to what happens to movie script writers--they're so eager to get creative acknowledgement that they virtually give their work away to Hollywood sharks.
There are competitive alternatives to this model. Quality designers could form cooperatives and market themselves online, for example.
Journalists, for whatever reason, have become mainly passive conduits of PR, releases, etc. They don't go out and get stories anymore. Why should people pay?
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of what you suggest is goofy nonsense, but I like one idea very much.
Make copyright law draconian, but make the plaintiff compensate the wrongfully accused defendant three times his actual attorney fees plus any damages and any pain and suffering.
The RIAA would actually have to investigate claims before making them. That would be a big improvement.
It isn't only about guilt or innocence. It is also about who the airlines allow to fly on their planes.
Every American has the lawful ability to amass an arsenal of devastating force. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! It is only fair that the airlines have the right to be selective in the matter of plane passengers.
There are a lot of nuts out there!
Yeah. Watching reruns of Ali doing the 'rope-a-dope' against George Foreman is watching irreversible horrible trauma as it was inflicted.
Saying boxing is not a sport just because you think it is barbaric is ridiculous, though. It is attractive to people because it is a blood sport. You're just misusing language in an attempt to make your point. I happen to agree that boxing has no place in a civilized society, but I'd rather see straightforward and honest arguments used to facilitate its demise.
I think that it's about time we fluoridate this guy's drinking water!
Once, as a young prosecutor, I asked what the big deal was about child rape. I was so naive and ignorant. That naivete was extinguished (to my embarrassment) when I was told of infant rape victims.
We are all naive and ignorant about important things. You are no exception. So please don't take it too bad when I say the following:
You idiot! Don't you know that a HUGE proportion of the homeless are MENTALLY ILL? Their CHOICE is often between living on the street (cheaply) or living in an institution (at great cost)?
P.s. Ayn Rand was a hypocritical ASS!
Dude. The First Amendment gives the Church a potentially much more dynamic defense than mere satire.
God will crush their geeky lawyer testicles on summary judgment--and on Judgment Day!
Trademark dilution is their theory.
They're hoping that God will back down in fear of their threat.
God probably will.
Thank God!
We will only colonize when it is cheap. It will only be cheap if colonization spins off tech that is already useful on Earth.
I don't think colonization needs to be energy intensive. Maybe a reliable power supply, freakishly powerful AI, and stupendous nanotech would be enough to get things started. Send out seedpods . . .
But who says that HUMANS need to do intergalactic travel in order to colonize space?
Biological seeds (or the tools to eventually make them) could be shipped intergalactically, along with childrearing robots.
Why not?
I don't think just the rich will go. Take some time to reflect upon what wealth is. It's not just dollars in the bank or a big pile of material. That shit gets old fast.
The major component of wealth is POWER--the ability to get people to do stuff that you (and they) would rather not do. Compare Louis XIV and a lower middle class family in the US today. If you look at what Louis had and what the family has (stuff), the relative wealth is debatable. If you look at prestige (power), it is not even close.
The rich won't go out into space until they have drones that they can lord over in some kind of aristocracy/oligarchy. Working men and entrepreneurs will get their shot (although labor laws will be a bitch to enforce). But my point is that space colonization will not be for the rich alone.
The first golden age of computers is over. The assholes own the playing field. They have owned it for awhile.
But here's a question: Is Terry Childs one of the assholes, or not?
There are few Generals with comprehensive intelligence. A lot of them are jacked-up little men who have developed skill in only a narrow range of activity. They learn when they get slapped upside the head, usually not before.
They'll come round, eventually. But by then, though, circumstances will change again and they'll get slapped upside the head all over again. And soldiers die.
Another reason war sucks.
"The solution is the driver" is no solution.
Do you actually drive?
Don't you know how many stupid drivers there are? I don't mean a little bit stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. What are you going to do? Make them un-stupid?
Making cars safer is the only way. These stupid drivers are not dangerous only to themselves--they are dangerous to passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers.
While the Merlin made the P-51, and the P-51 made precision bombing over Germany, precision bombing was not critical to winning the war in Europe. It was definitely helpful, but not necessary to victory. Very good arguments can be made that air resources would have been better allocated to operational and tactical commands.
I like the Merlin engine idea. It evokes an image of good British engineering (drawing on the noble past you cite).
One major reason supporting the fed's big conviction rate is that they very carefully select their prosecutions.
You won't see criminal charges in this case. Declining to charge crap like this is one of the reasons that the feds have such a big conviction rate.
On the other hand, when they do charge you it usually IS time to either contact your lawyer or execute your escape plan.
Review the following statute:
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Clearly, we are not talking about the reproduction of an identification card or a badge. We are talking about an "or other insignia."
The FBI is apparently taking the position that "or other insignia" means just what it (alone) says.
The Wikipedia people are taking the position that you have to read the last clause of the sentence in the context of the entire sentence--in other words, that when Congress used "or other insignia," they meant that badges and identification cards are a kind of insignia and that "or other insignia" was meant to include only "other insignia" that are like badges or identification cards. This is very good argument that employs an interpretive tool (ejusdem generis) that is commonly used by the courts. You can make a very good argument that the seal for an entire agency is not an insignia of the same class as a badge or identification card used to identify an FBI agent.
A huge problem with the federales' position is that the statute involved is a criminal statute. Judges resolve doubts in the interpretation of a criminal statute in favor of the defendant. That is called the rule of lenity.
Wikileaks can buttress its best arguments with all kinds of slippery slope arguments. For example, does a tourist commit a crime when he takes a photograph of the FBI seal? When he gives it to his grandmother? When he posts it on Flickr?
These are not the only arguments, either.
This is just too silly.
"He does his job AFTER he's fired?" HUH?!?!
When you're fired, your job is OVER. Your right to exercise control over the City's stuff is DONE.
Terry Childs is a stupid, neurotic fool. But there's no indication that he's a thief or a scumbag. He's been punished way more than enough by now. I hope the judge gives him credit for time served and ends this.
What do you mean by "attribute?" Are you purposely trying to be obscure, or are you doing the William Shakespeare made-up-word thing?
It is difficult for me to conceive of how a mere concept (i.e., man-made or "anthropogenic" changes) can "attribute" to global warming.
Even if the concept was a very "hot" idea, it still wouldn't attribute to global warming. It might "contribute," that's for sure. And a human being could attribute the hot idea to global warming (or vice versa). But always, the the hot idea would be incapable of attributing itself to something else. Unless, of course, the William Shakespeare mode is operative.
Please forgive the patronizing tone. I'm borrowing it from the tone of your post.
The beauty of sarcasm lies in its inherent ambiguity and its delayed-action effect.
A sarcasm symbol is crude and ugly.
Is it April 1?
When everybody can afford a high quality material printer and CNC milling machine/router, then we will be in the post-industrial economy. I don't think we're quite there yet. THAT kind of productive power might change everything.
While you can't have a free market without regulation, too much regulation (often pushed by dominant predatory players) will destroy the free market just as effectively. That's the kind of situation you are describing. I'm not arguing that regulation is a cure-all--it is medicine that can cure as well as kill. It's like a sailboat, you've constantly got to be trimming the sails in response to changes in the weather.
I've made no suggestion that the designers are oppressed. The points I make there relate to collateral points made in GP's post.
Maybe they are overpriced, or as one poster has suggested, maybe they deliver more quality than the client needs?
That's all I can think of.
Your argument that cottage industries are a sign of a free market is ridiculous. A cottage industry worker was one of the most oppressed people in the world. They were little better than slaves. They got paid the bare minimum and were among the first to starve.
Your free market talk only makes sense if people are considered chattels.
If you don't regulate the free market, the workers get oppressed. Unregulated business knows no boundaries (think the slave trade and the opium trade). When workers get too oppressed, they rebel and destabilize everything. Regulation follows . . .
A free market cannot be a static thing. It has to be regulated or it will inevitably go out of whack.
In an unregulated environment, the free market is only a transitory stage on the way to a marketplace dictated by trusts and cartels.
Foolish people don't realize that a market must be regulated to remain free. If the market is totally free, the most dominant and predatory businesses will destroy the smaller ones and then use their uncontested market power to create an "unfree" market that minimizes competition and decreases the cost of production (like wages). Late nineteenth century/early twentieth century history provides many examples of this (look at the railroads!).
So, when you compare the free market to gravity or evolution, you are just being silly.
I do agree that this is a free market situation, though. It looks like a certain category of designers is way overpricing themselves. This appears analogous to what happens to movie script writers--they're so eager to get creative acknowledgement that they virtually give their work away to Hollywood sharks.
There are competitive alternatives to this model. Quality designers could form cooperatives and market themselves online, for example.
Journalists, for whatever reason, have become mainly passive conduits of PR, releases, etc. They don't go out and get stories anymore. Why should people pay?