It's based on a post by legRoom further down in this discussion, which I'm re-posting so everybody sees it. Here's the first sentence in their comment:
"by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @10:23PM (#52081427) I have now read the entire paper."
So legRoom, this comment where you say "That's a bold faced lie..." was posted before you read the entire paper. I just can't believe how you posted links and argued so vehemently and you were so sure and yet you had only read a summary (and you are probably not a scientist if I had to guess).
There is another possible solution. Wolf-PAC is seeking to amend the Constitution, using a little known clause which allows states to put forth amendments, instead of Congress. Their goal is to remove the large corporate donations and lobbyist influence which have infected national politics. The reasoning is that once this influence has been put in check, only then can we use democracy to solve all of our other problems. Here is their Wikipedia page:
It's interesting how skinny people always think there is a simple solution: eat less. As someone who was obese (140 pounds overweight) for much of his life, this is one thing in which I am an expert. And I can tell you there IS a simple solution, but that's NOT it. Eating less sends your body into starvation mode, so that any calorie consumed goes directly to fat with no chance of becoming energy. Over-exercising stresses the body, which produces a similar reaction. If you are very overweight and have been so for many years, there is an 80 percent chance this diet will work for you: The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet. No, you don't cut out carbs (like Atkins, which can be unhealthy), you don't cut out calories, and you don't cut out fat. You simply eat all your carbs for the day in one meal. The rest of the day you eat low carb. It's that simple. Sounds too good to be true, right? It adjusts for a hunger-cycle imbalance: eating carbs all day is what makes the body produce too much insulin which spirals everything out of control and amplifies obesity. The "diet" (it's really more of a slight alteration of normal eating) is an easy and healthy way to carefully lose lots of weight with no side-effects. And yes, I lost 140 pounds slowly (the good way) over two years. I have the "Jared" jeans to prove it, along with a few "before" pictures. I have been skinny and healthy ever since. The diet, for those who are curious, was developed over a decade by two doctors, who are experimenting and refining their results. Please go to www dot carbohydrateaddicts dot com for more info.
I've thought about this a lot lately with Bush running our country, but now today I am seriously considering my options. What should I do if the nukes really start flying? I don't have a bomb shelter, so maybe I'm screwed no matter what. But let's say I live far from a major US city, and the nukes mostly fly on foreign soils. Say that the nukes put a lot of radiation into the atmosphere, but we don't all die right away (no major nuclear winter). What should I do? More than just jokes about "kiss my ass goodbye", I'm lookin for real options. How do I procure water and/or food for the long haul? Where should I go? How long do I have to live? Most importantly: what can I do to PREPARE for this possibility? What can I can buy or stockpile or learn that will give me an advantage in the aftermath?
Yes, I did RTFA. And no, IANAL. But what I have to say is about how the whole problem got started in the first place.
Once upon a time there was no Internet or computers. To sell copies of a work of art, you needed money, manufacturing resources, distribution resources, etc. To buy copies of a work of art, you needed someone else to sell it to you who had these resources.
To protect humble artists from having someone else selling (key word: SELLING) copies of their work, artists were granted copyright protection by law. These laws made sense. I create the work, I own it. I sign an agreement with a distributor, they sell the works, we both make money. Joe Blow buys a copy, makes his own copies, SELLS them, and this takes away from the money I could have made by selling the copies. He is wronging me, therefore the law is on my side to right the wrong.
But times have changed, and the laws have not.
Nowadays all you need is a computer and an Internet connection to distribute copies of a work of art to the whole world. But where are the Joe Blows? They may exist, but they are rare. Most people are giving away copies for free, they are not making copies and selling them, and they are not wronging that humble artist (because they are not making any money at it).
This is where the big corporations step in and make things worse. They don't want you to get Album X for free on Napster, they want you to pay $15 for the album at the store. They want you to believe that file sharing is taking away their money. I still haven't seen convincing proof of this claim.
I know from my own experience with Napster, I downloaded albums I would NEVER have bought at the store. So who lost money? No one. If anything, I used Napster to find really good albums, then I went out and bought them! So sometimes, Napster actually helped the corporations make more money. Too bad they shut it down before they could realize this.
Unfortunately, Pandora's Box has been unleashed. There will always be file sharing, no matter how many laws they pass or how many people they put in jail. (Viva la Internet!) I predict this situation will soon follow the pattern of the war on drugs. They make the laws tougher and tougher, and our jails simply get more and more crowded.
Obviously, I would support copyright law reform. But as long as the corporations who have the money and do the lobbying can't see that they're shooting themselves in the foot, this reform will not happen. I would suggest they EMBRACE file-sharing, find a way to make it work in their favor.
Until then, WE are the PEOPLE. WE elect the Congressmen, therefore WE can solve this problem. Only when our voices become loud enough will our Congressmen listen to US instead of the corporations!
Slashdot Mirror
I have a new Internet acronym to propose. :) RTEP.
It's based on a post by legRoom further down in this discussion, which I'm re-posting so everybody sees it. Here's the first sentence in their comment:
"by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @10:23PM (#52081427)
I have now read the entire paper."
So legRoom, this comment where you say "That's a bold faced lie..." was posted before you read the entire paper. I just can't believe how you posted links and argued so vehemently and you were so sure and yet you had only read a summary (and you are probably not a scientist if I had to guess).
RTEP legRoom. Read The Entire Paper.
There is another possible solution. Wolf-PAC is seeking to amend the Constitution, using a little known clause which allows states to put forth amendments, instead of Congress. Their goal is to remove the large corporate donations and lobbyist influence which have infected national politics. The reasoning is that once this influence has been put in check, only then can we use democracy to solve all of our other problems. Here is their Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-PAC
And here is the group's site:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
It's interesting how skinny people always think there is a simple solution: eat less. As someone who was obese (140 pounds overweight) for much of his life, this is one thing in which I am an expert. And I can tell you there IS a simple solution, but that's NOT it. Eating less sends your body into starvation mode, so that any calorie consumed goes directly to fat with no chance of becoming energy. Over-exercising stresses the body, which produces a similar reaction. If you are very overweight and have been so for many years, there is an 80 percent chance this diet will work for you: The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet. No, you don't cut out carbs (like Atkins, which can be unhealthy), you don't cut out calories, and you don't cut out fat. You simply eat all your carbs for the day in one meal. The rest of the day you eat low carb. It's that simple. Sounds too good to be true, right? It adjusts for a hunger-cycle imbalance: eating carbs all day is what makes the body produce too much insulin which spirals everything out of control and amplifies obesity. The "diet" (it's really more of a slight alteration of normal eating) is an easy and healthy way to carefully lose lots of weight with no side-effects. And yes, I lost 140 pounds slowly (the good way) over two years. I have the "Jared" jeans to prove it, along with a few "before" pictures. I have been skinny and healthy ever since. The diet, for those who are curious, was developed over a decade by two doctors, who are experimenting and refining their results. Please go to www dot carbohydrateaddicts dot com for more info.
I've thought about this a lot lately with Bush running our country, but now today I am seriously considering my options. What should I do if the nukes really start flying? I don't have a bomb shelter, so maybe I'm screwed no matter what. But let's say I live far from a major US city, and the nukes mostly fly on foreign soils. Say that the nukes put a lot of radiation into the atmosphere, but we don't all die right away (no major nuclear winter). What should I do? More than just jokes about "kiss my ass goodbye", I'm lookin for real options. How do I procure water and/or food for the long haul? Where should I go? How long do I have to live? Most importantly: what can I do to PREPARE for this possibility? What can I can buy or stockpile or learn that will give me an advantage in the aftermath?
Yes, I did RTFA. And no, IANAL. But what I have to say is about how the whole problem got started in the first place.
Once upon a time there was no Internet or computers. To sell copies of a work of art, you needed money, manufacturing resources, distribution resources, etc. To buy copies of a work of art, you needed someone else to sell it to you who had these resources.
To protect humble artists from having someone else selling (key word: SELLING) copies of their work, artists were granted copyright protection by law. These laws made sense. I create the work, I own it. I sign an agreement with a distributor, they sell the works, we both make money. Joe Blow buys a copy, makes his own copies, SELLS them, and this takes away from the money I could have made by selling the copies. He is wronging me, therefore the law is on my side to right the wrong.
But times have changed, and the laws have not.
Nowadays all you need is a computer and an Internet connection to distribute copies of a work of art to the whole world. But where are the Joe Blows? They may exist, but they are rare. Most people are giving away copies for free, they are not making copies and selling them, and they are not wronging that humble artist (because they are not making any money at it).
This is where the big corporations step in and make things worse. They don't want you to get Album X for free on Napster, they want you to pay $15 for the album at the store. They want you to believe that file sharing is taking away their money. I still haven't seen convincing proof of this claim.
I know from my own experience with Napster, I downloaded albums I would NEVER have bought at the store. So who lost money? No one. If anything, I used Napster to find really good albums, then I went out and bought them! So sometimes, Napster actually helped the corporations make more money. Too bad they shut it down before they could realize this.
Unfortunately, Pandora's Box has been unleashed. There will always be file sharing, no matter how many laws they pass or how many people they put in jail. (Viva la Internet!) I predict this situation will soon follow the pattern of the war on drugs. They make the laws tougher and tougher, and our jails simply get more and more crowded.
Obviously, I would support copyright law reform. But as long as the corporations who have the money and do the lobbying can't see that they're shooting themselves in the foot, this reform will not happen. I would suggest they EMBRACE file-sharing, find a way to make it work in their favor.
Until then, WE are the PEOPLE. WE elect the Congressmen, therefore WE can solve this problem. Only when our voices become loud enough will our Congressmen listen to US instead of the corporations!