1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?
Sure, humans didn't arrive on the scene until we had a patent system. Somehow I don't remember that history lesson. Maybe it didn't get copyright protection so I didn't see it.
For thousands of years there was no patent system, or even a copyright system. Yet technology, science, literary, musical, theatrical and advancement in all realms of man occurred. This entirely demolishes the poorly constructed hypothesis that we NEED a patent system to survive. What drove people to create prior to the patent system?
We really should have an Irony tag for posts that whine about "infeasible/uninformed/exaggerated "solutions" " and then procede to be exactly one of them.
Re:A good suggestion was embedded in the article:
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1
If the Patent Office closed its doors today it would need two years just to clear the backlog.
How about a 2 year moratorium on patents?
Every take a few days off? When you get back you've now got two days of backlog to wade through to get current.
Now if you quit your job , well no more backlog.;)
Re #1: must be making/using it. Why can't the person contract it out?
Re: #3: Because patents (and IP generally) are the work of the human mind, make patent ownership non-transferable and limited to the private individual who actually used his mind to invent it. No corporate ownership allowed.(Oh? You say that IBM funded the lab and not the indivdual inventor? IBM paid his salary? Well, then IBM can contract with the inventor to have a favorable or royalty-free license.) Corporations would be able to license, but never own. Provision can be made for joint ownersship in small limited partnerships when more than one person collaberated.
I think you are close, but still off-mark on this one. The underlying issue you are trying to address is large corporate abuse. Essentially, disproportionate power. You see, it isn't absolute power that corrupts, if EVERYONE has it. It is the imbalance of power that corrupts.
In this case, it is the proportional power of the corporate giant compared to "the little guy". The solution is to remove the power of the corporation. You attempt to do this by limiting the power of the individual when you say that only the creator can own it. but then you say to not allow corporate ownership.
This second statement is not even the whole fix. It is one I've been formulating for years. The basis for it is the fact that corporations are government entities. They exist solely by description/creation of legislation.
If the corporation has no ownership authority, perhaps much of the problem is likely to be solved. However, the change to "infinite licensing" of all but ownership will become the norm. Effectively, there becomes no difference. So what happens if Joe Shmowe owns the patent if he has given exclusive use of the patent over to Megacorp?
Essentially, it gets down the patent's very existence that is the source of the problem. Everything else is using a finger bandage on a large sucking chest wound. And this is where laws get tangly, twisted, and arcane.
Rule of thumb should be that the more conditions and complexities it takes, the more unsound the original principle is. For example, say we take the idea of non-corporate ownership of patents and copyrights.
Then, as I indicate above, we merely change to irrevocable licenses and such with littel difference. So Megacorp changes "we own any" to "you grant us an royalty-free, irrevocable, exclusive license to any" in your employment contract. All we've done is managed to change the wording, but not in any substantial way. All fluff, no crunch.
So we add verbiage to prevent that. And it begins to get complicated. Still trying to work around the problems the patent system itself creates.
Consider the fact that someone is trying to patent a plot.
Essentially much of the problem with the "modern patent system" is the loss of the original intent. Today the USPTO is granting patents on ideas not specific implementations of them. This is much of the problem, and part fo what you seem to try to solve by your requirement of active use/pursuing of the patent.
However, some things can not be done by the inventor. I may be able to determine how to make a new material, but lack the material to do it. indeed, history is replete with these cases. A short lifetime on patents would go a long way to solving this. And I mean short. Five years? Too long. IF there are to be patents, it should only be to protect copying of the specific implementation as well as to obtain first mover advantage. It should not be used for perpetual residuals.
One convoluted way would be to require a specific timeline to market with objective, verifiable milestones as part of the application and grant. It would also be required that this timeline be the shortest possible. if someone else finds a faster way, good for them they've now got something new and not covered by your patent.
But again this gets into twisted legalese far too quickly. Especially when Megacorp has LoL, Lots of Lawyers. Which brings us to the other half of the cause of the problem you are trying to solve: existence of corporations.
When it proves more popular than Moglen's GPL 3.0, democracy and open source will have conspired in the market for maximum freedom, as chosen by the free.
And if the inverse occurs? Will democracy and open source then have conspired in the market for minimum freedom, as chosen by the free?
You couldn't be more wrong. If people don't like the rewrite, they won't use it.
That doesn't make it an election. If that was what an election was, I'd nominate myself President and you could either follow my rules or not if you don't like them. By the same token, I'd be able to ignore w/o penalty the results of an election.
Sadly, it is remaining constant. It needs to go down. There is too much "compromise" going on. Compromise as used today means "no, you give up your goals so I can get mine, then we'lll call it [compomise|bipartisanship]."
To illustrate, lest peolpe get confused.
People coming to my house go by my rules while at my house. It's unanimous. No compromise. For example, there is no smoking or chewing in my house. Don't like the rules, you don't participate in what goes on there. I expect most people will agree that is fair, and probably have rules for their own (ie. these are the rules, follow them or don't come in, not necessarily what the rules are) and expect them to be followed. It is called "Unanimous Consent". Everyone coming in to my house agrees to the rules.
Why are we no longer the "Benevolent Superpower?" So the world wants to share in our responsiblities with the DNS system and naming conventions. Is it really so different to accomplish this with an international panel as opposed to our organizations (which even still contain many international members).
Yes, quite frankly it is. The more voices in a "community" trying to get their opposing way, the more problems you create. The addage about "too many cooks spoil the stew" is referring to the cooks who want to do it their way.
There is not shame in passing the Internet over to a multi-national body. Nor is there a valid reason to do so. And many to not do so.
I am sure that most of the world would have been happy with America continuing to run the Internet as long as there was a set of procedures for them to veto unwanted changes. America could have had it's cake and eaten it.
I'd be happy top let you keep runnign your life as long as there is a set of procedures that let me veto anything you want to do that I do not want you to do. What? You don't want that? Then why propose it for others.
This idea that someone MUST give up something they created is sheer nonsense. I've got a some nice landscaping in progress in my yard. I suppose you'll want that when it's finished too? If you don't like my rules of the hose, you don't have top go there. If you don't like the rules in my playground, go play somewhere else.
It is truly ridiculous that people claim that wanting to "keep" something you "made" is selfish. Wanting something someone ELSE made/has and insisting they give it up or be considered selfish is moronic and selfish.
If you think you can go have your own then... DO IT! then you can establish your own rules. The hard part has been done already: the technology exists and how it fits together are already knowns. It is like assembling a lego car or prefabricated DIY furniture from Walmart.
In summary: Go have children of your own and then come tell the parents how easy and simple it is.
Now, there is nothing vindictive in this. Do you let people at the restaurant just walk up and take your food for themselves? No? Is it vindictive, rude, or mean spirited to tell them to ge their own? No.
I sincerely wish every country that has problems with the "control of the Internet" go make their own. Then we can quit such petty bullshit out and get down to the real problems. Such as namespace pollution and this illusion that there is a "total control" over The Internet.
Why, dear poster, is it the US that has to "give up" it's Internet and make a new one? Why don't other countries have to make their own? Ah therein lies the real issue. People seem way to eager to make OTHER people give up their stuff, but not their own, and consider that being generous or charitable. I call that hypocrisy.
Don't tell them to build their own DNS servers and break the entire nature of freedom for the net, besides what good are they with IPv4 and the core DNS naming conventions. Adding DNS servers with gibberish for localized areas isn't going to do anything positive for the maturing of
What you're describing there is totalitarianism. Ideally communism is where no one is better than anyone and everyone gets the same thing.
You are incorrect. Communism has a specific set of people who control everything. As such, by definition some are better than others. Communism as in "theory" is an economic system. it has no concerns about whether someone is better or worse, just that the system is entirely under control and "equally divided" for whatever that means accordign to the controlling regime.
Communism:
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
I know socialism sounds like communism but that is becuase socialism is seen as the step in between capitalism and communism. Fundamentally they are identical. Here is Marx' description of communism:
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
It's that generalization and hand waving of "society regulates" that is the crux of the matter. "Society" doesn't regulate anything, it is a product of countless processes.
One of the key aspects you'll see is that nobody has a specific function. yet *someone* must clean the stalls at the local eatery, someone has to to drudge the sludge of the sewers. Yes, there are a few people who "live for this" kind of stuff. But not enough. There are three ways to get people who do not want to do something to do it: 1. Force 2. Non-force persuasion by appeal to emotion 3. Renumeration of some sort.
Under communism, #2 is supposed to happen naturally. Well, under Communism, a lot of #2 does happen, but the #2 in the above list.
A lot of people would be suprised to know that Marx' view of communism was one of no government: true anarchy. Modern Communists would be horrified at the thought. Just like modern liberals would be horrified to learn that liberal used to mean "libertarian".
Ultimately there are two ends: statism and "true anarchy". Everything else is a point in between the two.
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
American can control the '1's and the rest of the world can control the '0's. France gets the occasional '2.'
That's fair. France is full of '2', many believe the US "1"s all over anyway (and much of the world thinks they want the US to 1 off), and the rest of the world is mostly a net "0".;)
It was a joke. If you don't think it's funny then 1 on you. Or eat 2 and die. Your choice.:D
Most definitely, the world is far worse a place now. For just about everybody.
Actually for just about everybody, the world is no different than it was. For *most* people their chance of being involved in or family members of terrorists has not changed. Those in high risk areas still have a high risk. Those in low still have a low risk. Those in moderate areas are still in moderate areas of risk, even if the source of the threat has changed.
IMRO, both sides that say everything is different are wrong. Sadly, all the bickering about which direction it went is not only pointless and ineffective, it is preventing real improvement from happening anywhere.
Now back to the topic...
The real reason you can't have a ".earth" global tld is because it will either have to be managed by a single entity or a committee. Truth of the matter is no major country country will want another to control it.
Underlying fact is that none need to. We don't really need a global TLD. Our phones don't have a universal area code and that works out pretty well. A global TLD only exacerbates the growing namespace problem. Let each country that wants to have it's own namespace do so. Each country can manage it's subdomain as they see fit and let others determine if they want to "peer" or not. NNTP may be a model for this as well.
We already see some of it. I see.com.uk and.com.au and.com.de and so on. Seems to me we may be moving a bit in that direction *anyway*.
and you don't want to have conflicting DNS records either. Indeed the rest of the world can set up their own DNS servers for a new TLD (say '.earth'), but they can't force anyone to contact the root server for that domain. The result will be chaos.
Quite the exaggeration. News flash: there ARE alternate DNS systems. I participate in 4 total DNS systems. No chaos here. And yes, a government *can* force ISPs in their area to do things. Whether they *should* is a different story.
TANSTAAFL
Too bad more of the world doesn't get the truth in that.:(
This is true regardless of the personality in power. Only the government has the power to actually take away your rights. Government, as such, is the most dangerous threat to liberty and freedom. You may feel smug about GWB and feel comfortable in labelling him as such. But it is the position and the power vested into it that is the problem.
Remember: Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
Oh and about McCarthy... turns out he was right apparently.
Only in extremely rare upturns have geeks ever commanded the lifestyle that managers have. For most of history, if you want to live in a house, if you want to go to concerts, if you want to get married, you have to be a manager.
Nearly every geek I know meets two or more of those wants, and is not a manager. Nor are we extremely rare cases. We've all managed to do this before, during, and after the boom/bust years.
Those three wants are a matter of managing your finances. If a pizza delivery driver can accomplish all of those, but you can't as a geek. Well, the problem is not the industry but you - and geekiness or nerdiness is not a factor. Analyze your fianances and you'll quickly find out what your real priorities have become. If you blow all your money on the latest laptop or other technology as opposed to having your own house, going to concerts and/or being part of a family, then those were clearly not as high on your priority list as you thought they were.
Manage yourself first. And keep in mind the Peter Principles.;)
We know that given the information everyone is connected to any other specific person by at most, what 8 degrees or less? IIRC, the average connection is about 5. Therefore, what are your chances of getting caught up in this web of "multi-level surveillance"? Pretty high I'd suspect (no I haven't done the math feel free to do so and post it, anyone, anyone?). Hell I'm three degrees from the White House, and thus four degrees from any member of Congress through that route. On the other hand, I've met a couple congresscritters so I'm actually one-two degrees from there.
There you go, everyone start putting their congresscritters in their address books and periodically call them. If you get a live person and they ask why you are calling, explain to them that since the Senator/Representative has not managed to get NSLs revoked, you are ensuring they (including the person on the phone) get caught in the web too. Do the same for reporters.;) Do the same for email. Perhaps a nice email summing up the numbers periodically and routinely emailed to all congresscritters and a lot of reporters.
I wonder how many people would have to do this before the odds of having all of congress caught in the NSL web of abuse approached near certainty.
Can you imagine what would happen if an alleged "suspect" was a telemarketer?
Or going off of that thought, I suppose the actual terrorists would want to start randomly calling a bunch of numbers, maybe even "targeting" a few specific people by calling them multiple times. Why? Make the job harder for the enemy. Standard practice to throw the other side off the trail. Remember "the solution to polution is dilution". What if they picked a few notable bankers and simply called them frequently, perhaps even regularly. Wonder how the managers of respond to getting NSLs for their employees?
And since under NSL the FBI/whatever will then get their records (the multi-level part), periodically call from a set of payphones. Make it even more suspicious.
While I agree this guy is running a scam, the functioning of items on your list do not rely on the THEORY of QM. A THEORY is merely an explanation. A device is proof of a working technological application. It is possible that these devices work just fine and QM is wrong. Devices rely on mechanical principles, our understanding or explanation of them are irrelevant to their function.
There is a theory that if you stand on a street corner waving your arms up and down while shouting "Noono carat mreky" in C# green aliens won't land on your domicile. Does the fact that green aliens have not landed on your house rely in this theory? No, there may well be other explanations. Like the bullseye landing pattern you put on your neighbors' houses.
History is replete with devices that work just fine, but "relied" on theories later proved to be invalid. These devices did not just up and quit working when the theiry was disproved. Should QM ever get replaced, lasers, etc. will not suddenly stop working either.
Besides QM is not a single theory, but a collection of them. There is old QM and new QM and many theories about QM.
It is better said that a given idea may violate a *specific* principle of a theory. natrually, if a device that allegedly violates a principle works, something is in err, and it may well be the principle. Again, it is has happened before and will happen again. Not that it is necessarily happening in this case. Even then if a given principle of a given theory is invalidated it may not invalidate the entire theory. Again, this is a frequent event in the annals of science.
Essentially there is no disproving "quantum theory" as there is no such thing to disprove. It is an idea encompassing a very large arena. Quite possibly an infinite field.;)
Still you make excuses for the acts of the lying morally relativistic republicans by saying the dems woulda if they coulda?
I am not doing so. I am responding to the claim that the Dems woudl NOT have done so, when EVERY indication is they woudl have done the same thing.
If i were to take that fallacious line, I could ask you why you defend the Democrats for not having the chance to do the same thing. They stood around and let it happen. They did nothing of merit, as an elected group, to stop it.
In case you haven't figured it out, I don't like EITHER of them, for the SAME reasons. I'm "attacking" both "sides", not defending either one.
It is the republicans who need to be put into their place, and when the dems regain the top slot, it becomes their turn to feel the heat.
NO! That is a recipe for continuation of the status quo. They BOTH need to feel the heat NOW. Otherwise the Dems will take over and think their social agenda of increasing the loss of our freedoms for different reasons was the cause of their "success" at the polls. You wind up in a perpetual seesaw resulting in the steady elimination of all rights equally between the two. You repeatedly trade bully one for bully two, then reverse and repeat.
Putting "the heat" on only one half of the responsible parties has never worked, why should we continue to expect it will?
To say the blame ultimately lies in the people for electing these representatives is disengenuous. It is like saying the ultimate reason for a person killing another lies with his/her parents for giving them birth.
Start with those who actually made the laws. ALL of them. Otherwise you'll spend your life running from end to end on the seesaw trying to pull down whomever is currently at the top.
So we develop space weapons. They develop space weapons. We all develop space weapons. We decide to blow the 1,800 satellites out of the sky in some sort of stellar turf war.
Given the likely methods for satellite neutralization, explosives are not likely to be the main cause. All you need/want to do is disable the satellite. Thus, the situation you dreamt of is incredibly unlikely.
Indeed, the ideal method is a means of temporarily disabling the satellites. It is the best means of hiding asset movements and closing enemy eyes with little exposure to yourself. With "temporary blinding" you can strike a few non-key sats of your own and act the victim as well. This could buy needed time to implement an attack or move assets. It might even be useful to temporarily remove from the equation assets you own/use but that are also used by the enemy. And finally, it is better to temporarily disable the enemy's sats and weapons so you can use them afterward than it is to destroy them.
What nobody has considered, is the gravity of the situation (literally, or lack thereof). Now you have billions of little pieces of satellite material flying around in all directions without any gravity to stop them.
Surely you jest. There is in fact gravity all over LEO. That is why our sats need to have stationkeeping mechanisms. Any piece of debris resulting from your hypothetical explosions will fly in a particular direction. About half of those will take it away from LEO/Earth. A small percentage of that debris will temporarily drop into an orbital vector. However, friction (yes Virginia, there is enough atmosphere there to produce friction) will bring them to suborbital velocities quite quickly. The larger the item the faster it will happen.
The remaining directions from an explosion in LEO are toward Earth and will result in very rapid burnu in the upper astmosphere.
Any items in an orbital pattern that collide with other peices are going to lose energy in the collision, most likely resulting in a loss of orbital velocity. Any items remaining in an orbital pattern will remain in nearly the same orbital pattern they were in previously, and can be tracked and accounted for. Like we do already.
So the scenario you posit has about as much chance as us not "weaponinzing space".
Mods/Metamods: The parent post is not insighful, it is dead wrong. There is no insight in dreaming of a scenario and ignoring reality to proclaim it a likely disaster.
Oh, wait we already have air-based weapons platforms. B1, B-52, Cruise missiles, ICBMS (which happen to travel through space, btw), U2, F117, F16, F14, F15, F/A-18, and so on.
We have "weaponized" every environment we go into. Air, land, sea. Not only is space weaponry inevitable (esp. since it has already happened), it is not a detriment to us any more than any other environment we've done it in.
But ultimately, yes, if we want to protect against wandering asteroids, comets, and such, yes we do need space weapons. You don't get an earthbound 100 ton rock to miss the Earth by asking politely, Bruce Willis ain't gettin any younger, and in case you haven't noticed the aging shuttle wouldn't be up to the task anyway.
A space weapons race will come in handy when we determine the big rocks are headed this way. if for no other reason, this is enough.
I am saying that the republicans are to blame for the majority of rights stripped from humans after 911. They control the executive, the legislative, and many claim the judiciary as well. What has come into being since taking control is theirs alone to shoulder the blame for.
I hold both of them to blame. The Dems have tools available to them to stop a simple majority from doing these things, but they went along with it.
My point is that it didn't matter which party was in power, either of them would have done what has been done. Neither party cares a whit for the constitution or my rights beyond opportunities to poke hypocritically at the other.
The dems could have used a filibuster to stop the patriot act. They chose not to. They could have mounted a public campaign regarding unconstitutionality in the act, but they did not. Some of the Dems' only complaints about the PA is "who gets to use it". They don't have a problem with the power being there, just that they don't get to wield it (for now).
If the Dems took over we'd still have the PA. They won't get rid of it either.
Out of 100 Senators, only two did not vote for it: one against and one abstained/not voted. In the House, a mere 66 voted against it.
The Dems had an opportunity to stop it, or at least to delay it long enough for debate and inspection to occurr. They did not do so. They chose to go along with it. Thus, they are no less to blame than the Republicans.
It is doubtful that Clinton would have received all that was given in the Patriot Bill.
Why? The republicans controlled part of the congress then and would have voted for it for the same reasons the dems did this time: politics. They get to look like they did something. Nevermind that they didn't get to read what they were doing.
His attack using cruise missles upon a camp in Afghanistan, when he had intelligence that bin Laden was there was often referred to as "wagging the dog".
Irrelevant. We are talking about a clear, unmistakable attack on American soil event. No Republican congress critter would have made such a claims post-9/11. Extremists outside of congress, sure, just as they have done regarding Bush (the government did it types). But to claim that any congress critter would have made that assertion after that event is ludicrous. It would be political suicide.
Ashcroft, as a Senator, helped to shoot down lawful roving wiretaps being inserted into crime omnibus bills, voting no to amendments on multiple ocassions.
And what did ole Ashy do after 9/11? Changed his tune, that's what. What logical basis do we have to beleive he'd have done differently had it been a couple years prior? None.
It is also doubful that the Clinton Administration would have had the audacity to claim they needed these extreme methods right after they had miserbly failed to perform their duty of defending America.
Surely you jest. Clinton was *trying* to get these things. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed by republicans and signed by Clinton. Much of what is in the USAPATRIOT Act was voted down when part of the ARDPA. It allowed the INS to deport immigrants based on secret evidence, made it a crime to support the lawful activities of any group the state department labeled a "terrorist organization," and eliminated federal constitutional review of state death penalty cases. it is considered by most to be the precursor to the USAPATRIOT Act.
Clinton and the Democrats, assuming there was any resistance, would have painted the Repubs as against the protection of the US by opposing it. Heck they used that same tactic in the nineties. To beleive they would have done differently post-9/11 on their watch is ludicrous.
there is still no justifiable reason for the government enabling themselves with these extra powers.
Agreed.
Though the 4th is hardly alone in violations here. the existence of the FCC and its mission violates the constitution. The constitution gives the fedgov no authority for such a department.
We've been hearing about the so-called real estate bubble for what, 15+ years now? Eventually those predicting it will be able to claim victory... just as a stopped clock can do every so often.
From your linked site: A major sign that we are in a housing bubble is the fact that fewer people can afford homes.
Yet home ownership has been on the rise and is still rising. How can you square this fact with the previous claim?
Further... Home equity has diminished significantly as we are consuming our free cash rather than paying off our mortgages. Simply stated, frivolous consumers are maxed out on credit. Since 1995 national mortgage debt has risen from $4 trillion to $7 trillion! In just 2002, $820 billion was borrowed! If this isn't a sign of a housing bubble, than I don't know what is
Well, he got one thing right: he doesn't know what a (sign of a) housing bubble is. How much of that is refinancing, how much is home equity loans?
Further, there is no mention of a fundamental change in housing lending that IMO is a key factor driving increased home ownership rates: down payment reduction. He/they mention the debt/value ratio is higher, but fails to note that it takes far less of a downpayment to get into a home today. In many cases, you can get into a home with a down payment no more than a couple grand - barely 3%. Some cases, none at all will suffice.
The housing bubble will start to deflate when interest rates rise. Furthermore, even a slight downturn in our already feeble economy will cause an increase in mortgage delinquencies as consumers buckle from their debts.
Unless of course, those "consumers" are paying off their credit cards and lowering their monthly costs. Now, if they then max themselves back out again, they may have problems. Yet even then, they are often at lower monthly outflow than before making them more resilient to minor twiddles.
There are a lot of Disasterbators out there, and they are not limited to weather and climate, or nuclear power, but are finding homes in such places as the market. You, specifically, commit an act of deception (either by intent or by negligent forwarding of data) by saying this:
In 1989 Japanese housing bubble, housing prices tanked for 13 straight years.
What you failed to mention was there was another event that happened simultaneously: the Japanese Stock Market Crash.
From the paper from your link: This paper shows that there is no obvious explanation for a sudden increase in the relative demand for housing which could explain the price rise.
Actually, it failed to do so and failed miserably. it failed to take into account changes in things such as house/lot size, density, house features, and so on. The house of today includes a lot more than a house of 20 years ago. it fails to account for covenants and restrictions as well as additional services provided by developers such as nearby custom parks, pools, etc.. Further items of point found lacking in the referenced material is the effect of local taxation. Properties get listed as "subdividable" by local governments and the local government then "appraises" the land at a much higher value. This raises taxation which raises price of the land.
A factor the referenced material cites is the rise of housing price in comparison to rental costs, The author is puzzled at how the differences can be so stark and attibutes it to a bubble. However, another answer is clear and obvious. Costs to construct higher density rental housing are lower than much lower density single family housing. This means more paying people per space, which means you can have lower costs and lower prices. Also, the modern trend of requiring nearly 3-4 months of rent to get into a place places a downward pressure on that rent. In some cases it costs less to buy a house than all the deposits required for renting a new place. Especially if you have pets.
Maintaining sensor anonymity is critical because if the set of sensors is known, a malicious attacker could avoid the sensors entirely or could overwhelm the sensors with errant data.'
So basically: "Security through Obscurity is Bad." combined with "We found a way to eliminate the obscurity.".
Can anyone explain if the curent theories still speculate that eventually all the matter in the universe will be sucked up by black holes?
If the universe is expanding or constant, then no. If the universe is expanding the distances involved would prevent this from happening. If the universe is constant, then again not likely due to the distances invovled. That I remember at the moment, I've not heard of any credible theories that would say that a given volume of space with a given amount of matter would create a higher net gravitic effect if the matter were concentrated at a singularity in the center. Since gravity diminishes quickly over great distance, there is a limit to how far a black hole's "pull" is.
If the Universe is shrinking (or becomes so), then probably not. Of course, if the universe is shrinking, it doesn't matter what matter is left when it compresses to infinite non-space.
That said, the idea of black holes consuming other black holes has always been interesting. At least to me.
Anyway, you asked for speculation, so you got it. Grains of salt you'll have to provide on your own.;)
Slashdot Mirror
1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?
Sure, humans didn't arrive on the scene until we had a patent system. Somehow I don't remember that history lesson. Maybe it didn't get copyright protection so I didn't see it.
For thousands of years there was no patent system, or even a copyright system. Yet technology, science, literary, musical, theatrical and advancement in all realms of man occurred. This entirely demolishes the poorly constructed hypothesis that we NEED a patent system to survive. What drove people to create prior to the patent system?
We really should have an Irony tag for posts that whine about "infeasible/uninformed/exaggerated "solutions" " and then procede to be exactly one of them.
Every take a few days off? When you get back you've now got two days of backlog to wade through to get current.
Now if you quit your job , well no more backlog.
Re #1: must be making/using it.
Why can't the person contract it out?
Re: #3: Because patents (and IP generally) are the work of the human mind, make patent ownership non-transferable and limited to the private individual who actually used his mind to invent it. No corporate ownership allowed.(Oh? You say that IBM funded the lab and not the indivdual inventor? IBM paid his salary? Well, then IBM can contract with the inventor to have a favorable or royalty-free license.) Corporations would be able to license, but never own. Provision can be made for joint ownersship in small limited partnerships when more than one person collaberated.
I think you are close, but still off-mark on this one. The underlying issue you are trying to address is large corporate abuse. Essentially, disproportionate power. You see, it isn't absolute power that corrupts, if EVERYONE has it. It is the imbalance of power that corrupts.
In this case, it is the proportional power of the corporate giant compared to "the little guy". The solution is to remove the power of the corporation. You attempt to do this by limiting the power of the individual when you say that only the creator can own it. but then you say to not allow corporate ownership.
This second statement is not even the whole fix. It is one I've been formulating for years. The basis for it is the fact that corporations are government entities. They exist solely by description/creation of legislation.
If the corporation has no ownership authority, perhaps much of the problem is likely to be solved. However, the change to "infinite licensing" of all but ownership will become the norm. Effectively, there becomes no difference. So what happens if Joe Shmowe owns the patent if he has given exclusive use of the patent over to Megacorp?
Essentially, it gets down the patent's very existence that is the source of the problem. Everything else is using a finger bandage on a large sucking chest wound. And this is where laws get tangly, twisted, and arcane.
Rule of thumb should be that the more conditions and complexities it takes, the more unsound the original principle is. For example, say we take the idea of non-corporate ownership of patents and copyrights.
Then, as I indicate above, we merely change to irrevocable licenses and such with littel difference. So Megacorp changes "we own any" to "you grant us an royalty-free, irrevocable, exclusive license to any" in your employment contract. All we've done is managed to change the wording, but not in any substantial way. All fluff, no crunch.
So we add verbiage to prevent that. And it begins to get complicated. Still trying to work around the problems the patent system itself creates.
Consider the fact that someone is trying to patent a plot.
Essentially much of the problem with the "modern patent system" is the loss of the original intent. Today the USPTO is granting patents on ideas not specific implementations of them. This is much of the problem, and part fo what you seem to try to solve by your requirement of active use/pursuing of the patent.
However, some things can not be done by the inventor. I may be able to determine how to make a new material, but lack the material to do it. indeed, history is replete with these cases. A short lifetime on patents would go a long way to solving this. And I mean short. Five years? Too long. IF there are to be patents, it should only be to protect copying of the specific implementation as well as to obtain first mover advantage. It should not be used for perpetual residuals.
One convoluted way would be to require a specific timeline to market with objective, verifiable milestones as part of the application and grant. It would also be required that this timeline be the shortest possible. if someone else finds a faster way, good for them they've now got something new and not covered by your patent.
But again this gets into twisted legalese far too quickly. Especially when Megacorp has LoL, Lots of Lawyers. Which brings us to the other half of the cause of the problem you are trying to solve: existence of corporations.
Patenting Deja Vu
Basically.
When it proves more popular than Moglen's GPL 3.0, democracy and open source will have conspired in the market for maximum freedom, as chosen by the free.
And if the inverse occurs? Will democracy and open source then have conspired in the market for minimum freedom, as chosen by the free?
You couldn't be more wrong.
If people don't like the rewrite, they won't use it.
That doesn't make it an election. If that was what an election was, I'd nominate myself President and you could either follow my rules or not if you don't like them. By the same token, I'd be able to ignore w/o penalty the results of an election.
An election happens BEFORE, not AFTER.
What the hell happened to compromising?
... DO IT! then you can establish your own rules. The hard part has been done already: the technology exists and how it fits together are already knowns. It is like assembling a lego car or prefabricated DIY furniture from Walmart.
Sadly, it is remaining constant. It needs to go down. There is too much "compromise" going on. Compromise as used today means "no, you give up your goals so I can get mine, then we'lll call it [compomise|bipartisanship]."
To illustrate, lest peolpe get confused.
People coming to my house go by my rules while at my house. It's unanimous. No compromise. For example, there is no smoking or chewing in my house. Don't like the rules, you don't participate in what goes on there. I expect most people will agree that is fair, and probably have rules for their own (ie. these are the rules, follow them or don't come in, not necessarily what the rules are) and expect them to be followed. It is called "Unanimous Consent". Everyone coming in to my house agrees to the rules.
Why are we no longer the "Benevolent Superpower?" So the world wants to share in our responsiblities with the DNS system and naming conventions. Is it really so different to accomplish this with an international panel as opposed to our organizations (which even still contain many international members).
Yes, quite frankly it is. The more voices in a "community" trying to get their opposing way, the more problems you create. The addage about "too many cooks spoil the stew" is referring to the cooks who want to do it their way.
There is not shame in passing the Internet over to a multi-national body.
Nor is there a valid reason to do so. And many to not do so.
I am sure that most of the world would have been happy with America continuing to run the Internet as long as there was a set of procedures for them to veto unwanted changes. America could have had it's cake and eaten it.
I'd be happy top let you keep runnign your life as long as there is a set of procedures that let me veto anything you want to do that I do not want you to do. What? You don't want that? Then why propose it for others.
This idea that someone MUST give up something they created is sheer nonsense. I've got a some nice landscaping in progress in my yard. I suppose you'll want that when it's finished too? If you don't like my rules of the hose, you don't have top go there. If you don't like the rules in my playground, go play somewhere else.
It is truly ridiculous that people claim that wanting to "keep" something you "made" is selfish. Wanting something someone ELSE made/has and insisting they give it up or be considered selfish is moronic and selfish.
If you think you can go have your own then
In summary: Go have children of your own and then come tell the parents how easy and simple it is.
Now, there is nothing vindictive in this. Do you let people at the restaurant just walk up and take your food for themselves? No? Is it vindictive, rude, or mean spirited to tell them to ge their own? No.
I sincerely wish every country that has problems with the "control of the Internet" go make their own. Then we can quit such petty bullshit out and get down to the real problems. Such as namespace pollution and this illusion that there is a "total control" over The Internet.
Why, dear poster, is it the US that has to "give up" it's Internet and make a new one? Why don't other countries have to make their own? Ah therein lies the real issue. People seem way to eager to make OTHER people give up their stuff, but not their own, and consider that being generous or charitable. I call that hypocrisy.
Don't tell them to build their own DNS servers and break the entire nature of freedom for the net, besides what good are they with IPv4 and the core DNS naming conventions. Adding DNS servers with gibberish for localized areas isn't going to do anything positive for the maturing of
You are incorrect. Communism has a specific set of people who control everything. As such, by definition some are better than others. Communism as in "theory" is an economic system. it has no concerns about whether someone is better or worse, just that the system is entirely under control and "equally divided" for whatever that means accordign to the controlling regime.
Communism:
I know socialism sounds like communism but that is becuase socialism is seen as the step in between capitalism and communism. Fundamentally they are identical.
Here is Marx' description of communism:
It's that generalization and hand waving of "society regulates" that is the crux of the matter. "Society" doesn't regulate anything, it is a product of countless processes.
One of the key aspects you'll see is that nobody has a specific function. yet *someone* must clean the stalls at the local eatery, someone has to to drudge the sludge of the sewers. Yes, there are a few people who "live for this" kind of stuff. But not enough. There are three ways to get people who do not want to do something to do it:
1. Force
2. Non-force persuasion by appeal to emotion
3. Renumeration of some sort.
Under communism, #2 is supposed to happen naturally. Well, under Communism, a lot of #2 does happen, but the #2 in the above list.
A lot of people would be suprised to know that Marx' view of communism was one of no government: true anarchy. Modern Communists would be horrified at the thought. Just like modern liberals would be horrified to learn that liberal used to mean "libertarian".
Ultimately there are two ends: statism and "true anarchy". Everything else is a point in between the two.
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
American can control the '1's and the rest of the world can control the '0's. France gets the occasional '2.'
;)
:D
That's fair. France is full of '2', many believe the US "1"s all over anyway (and much of the world thinks they want the US to 1 off), and the rest of the world is mostly a net "0".
It was a joke. If you don't think it's funny then 1 on you. Or eat 2 and die. Your choice.
Most definitely, the world is far worse a place now. For just about everybody.
...
.com.uk and .com.au and .com.de and so on. Seems to me we may be moving a bit in that direction *anyway*.
Actually for just about everybody, the world is no different than it was. For *most* people their chance of being involved in or family members of terrorists has not changed. Those in high risk areas still have a high risk. Those in low still have a low risk. Those in moderate areas are still in moderate areas of risk, even if the source of the threat has changed.
IMRO, both sides that say everything is different are wrong. Sadly, all the bickering about which direction it went is not only pointless and ineffective, it is preventing real improvement from happening anywhere.
Now back to the topic
The real reason you can't have a ".earth" global tld is because it will either have to be managed by a single entity or a committee. Truth of the matter is no major country country will want another to control it.
Underlying fact is that none need to. We don't really need a global TLD. Our phones don't have a universal area code and that works out pretty well. A global TLD only exacerbates the growing namespace problem. Let each country that wants to have it's own namespace do so. Each country can manage it's subdomain as they see fit and let others determine if they want to "peer" or not. NNTP may be a model for this as well.
We already see some of it. I see
and you don't want to have conflicting DNS records either. Indeed the rest of the world can set up their own DNS servers for a new TLD (say '.earth'), but they can't force anyone to contact the root server for that domain. The result will be chaos.
:(
Quite the exaggeration. News flash: there ARE alternate DNS systems. I participate in 4 total DNS systems.
No chaos here. And yes, a government *can* force ISPs in their area to do things. Whether they *should* is a different story.
TANSTAAFL
Too bad more of the world doesn't get the truth in that.
This is true regardless of the personality in power. Only the government has the power to actually take away your rights. Government, as such, is the most dangerous threat to liberty and freedom. You may feel smug about GWB and feel comfortable in labelling him as such. But it is the position and the power vested into it that is the problem.
... turns out he was right apparently.
Remember:
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
Oh and about McCarthy
Only in extremely rare upturns have geeks ever commanded the lifestyle that managers have. For most of history, if you want to live in a house, if you want to go to concerts, if you want to get married, you have to be a manager.
;)
Nearly every geek I know meets two or more of those wants, and is not a manager. Nor are we extremely rare cases. We've all managed to do this before, during, and after the boom/bust years.
Those three wants are a matter of managing your finances. If a pizza delivery driver can accomplish all of those, but you can't as a geek. Well, the problem is not the industry but you - and geekiness or nerdiness is not a factor. Analyze your fianances and you'll quickly find out what your real priorities have become. If you blow all your money on the latest laptop or other technology as opposed to having your own house, going to concerts and/or being part of a family, then those were clearly not as high on your priority list as you thought they were.
Manage yourself first. And keep in mind the Peter Principles.
We know that given the information everyone is connected to any other specific person by at most, what 8 degrees or less? IIRC, the average connection is about 5. Therefore, what are your chances of getting caught up in this web of "multi-level surveillance"? Pretty high I'd suspect (no I haven't done the math feel free to do so and post it, anyone, anyone?). Hell I'm three degrees from the White House, and thus four degrees from any member of Congress through that route. On the other hand, I've met a couple congresscritters so I'm actually one-two degrees from there.
;) Do the same for email. Perhaps a nice email summing up the numbers periodically and routinely emailed to all congresscritters and a lot of reporters.
...
There you go, everyone start putting their congresscritters in their address books and periodically call them. If you get a live person and they ask why you are calling, explain to them that since the Senator/Representative has not managed to get NSLs revoked, you are ensuring they (including the person on the phone) get caught in the web too. Do the same for reporters.
I wonder how many people would have to do this before the odds of having all of congress caught in the NSL web of abuse approached near certainty.
Can you imagine what would happen if an alleged "suspect" was a telemarketer?
Or going off of that thought, I suppose the actual terrorists would want to start randomly calling a bunch of numbers, maybe even "targeting" a few specific people by calling them multiple times. Why? Make the job harder for the enemy. Standard practice to throw the other side off the trail. Remember "the solution to polution is dilution". What if they picked a few notable bankers and simply called them frequently, perhaps even regularly. Wonder how the managers of respond to getting NSLs for their employees?
And since under NSL the FBI/whatever will then get their records (the multi-level part), periodically call from a set of payphones. Make it even more suspicious.
Well gotta go, there's a knock at the door
While I agree this guy is running a scam, the functioning of items on your list do not rely on the THEORY of QM. A THEORY is merely an explanation. A device is proof of a working technological application. It is possible that these devices work just fine and QM is wrong. Devices rely on mechanical principles, our understanding or explanation of them are irrelevant to their function.
;)
There is a theory that if you stand on a street corner waving your arms up and down while shouting "Noono carat mreky" in C# green aliens won't land on your domicile. Does the fact that green aliens have not landed on your house rely in this theory? No, there may well be other explanations. Like the bullseye landing pattern you put on your neighbors' houses.
History is replete with devices that work just fine, but "relied" on theories later proved to be invalid. These devices did not just up and quit working when the theiry was disproved. Should QM ever get replaced, lasers, etc. will not suddenly stop working either.
Besides QM is not a single theory, but a collection of them. There is old QM and new QM and many theories about QM.
It is better said that a given idea may violate a *specific* principle of a theory. natrually, if a device that allegedly violates a principle works, something is in err, and it may well be the principle. Again, it is has happened before and will happen again. Not that it is necessarily happening in this case. Even then if a given principle of a given theory is invalidated it may not invalidate the entire theory. Again, this is a frequent event in the annals of science.
Essentially there is no disproving "quantum theory" as there is no such thing to disprove. It is an idea encompassing a very large arena. Quite possibly an infinite field.
Still you make excuses for the acts of the lying morally relativistic republicans by saying the dems woulda if they coulda?
I am not doing so. I am responding to the claim that the Dems woudl NOT have done so, when EVERY indication is they woudl have done the same thing.
If i were to take that fallacious line, I could ask you why you defend the Democrats for not having the chance to do the same thing. They stood around and let it happen. They did nothing of merit, as an elected group, to stop it.
In case you haven't figured it out, I don't like EITHER of them, for the SAME reasons. I'm "attacking" both "sides", not defending either one.
It is the republicans who need to be put into their place, and when the dems regain the top slot, it becomes their turn to feel the heat.
NO! That is a recipe for continuation of the status quo. They BOTH need to feel the heat NOW. Otherwise the Dems will take over and think their social agenda of increasing the loss of our freedoms for different reasons was the cause of their "success" at the polls. You wind up in a perpetual seesaw resulting in the steady elimination of all rights equally between the two. You repeatedly trade bully one for bully two, then reverse and repeat.
Putting "the heat" on only one half of the responsible parties has never worked, why should we continue to expect it will?
To say the blame ultimately lies in the people for electing these representatives is disengenuous. It is like saying the ultimate reason for a person killing another lies with his/her parents for giving them birth.
Start with those who actually made the laws. ALL of them. Otherwise you'll spend your life running from end to end on the seesaw trying to pull down whomever is currently at the top.
Kill all of your processes.
/etc/passwd|cut -d: -f1,3
/etc/passwd
$ ps -ef|awk '{print $2}'|xargs kill
Your version won't kill init. Better version:
shutdown -h now
Edit a file and delete the first and last line.
$ vi
1GddGdd:wq!
Optimized version:
vi foo
ddGdd:wq
Or skip the editor:
sed -e '1d; $d ' foo.txt >foo2.txt && mv foo2.txt foo.txt
Who has access to the computer?
# cat
This one will show username and geckos field, who has root (user/group) permissions, and only requires one command.
awk ' BEGIN {FS=":"} ($4==0 || $3==0) {print $1 "("$5")" " **has root access"} ($3!=0 && $4!=0) { print $1 "("$5")"} '
"extended his gloved hand and quickly removed the first fiber strip, which was sticking up from Discovery's smooth, tiled underside."
Is it me or am I the only person who when first glancing at that thought it was segment from erotic literature?
We took a poll and well, it was just you.
So we develop space weapons. They develop space weapons. We all develop space weapons. We decide to blow the 1,800 satellites out of the sky in some sort of stellar turf war.
Given the likely methods for satellite neutralization, explosives are not likely to be the main cause. All you need/want to do is disable the satellite. Thus, the situation you dreamt of is incredibly unlikely.
Indeed, the ideal method is a means of temporarily disabling the satellites. It is the best means of hiding asset movements and closing enemy eyes with little exposure to yourself. With "temporary blinding" you can strike a few non-key sats of your own and act the victim as well. This could buy needed time to implement an attack or move assets. It might even be useful to temporarily remove from the equation assets you own/use but that are also used by the enemy. And finally, it is better to temporarily disable the enemy's sats and weapons so you can use them afterward than it is to destroy them.
What nobody has considered, is the gravity of the situation (literally, or lack thereof). Now you have billions of little pieces of satellite material flying around in all directions without any gravity to stop them.
Surely you jest. There is in fact gravity all over LEO. That is why our sats need to have stationkeeping mechanisms. Any piece of debris resulting from your hypothetical explosions will fly in a particular direction. About half of those will take it away from LEO/Earth. A small percentage of that debris will temporarily drop into an orbital vector. However, friction (yes Virginia, there is enough atmosphere there to produce friction) will bring them to suborbital velocities quite quickly. The larger the item the faster it will happen.
The remaining directions from an explosion in LEO are toward Earth and will result in very rapid burnu in the upper astmosphere.
Any items in an orbital pattern that collide with other peices are going to lose energy in the collision, most likely resulting in a loss of orbital velocity. Any items remaining in an orbital pattern will remain in nearly the same orbital pattern they were in previously, and can be tracked and accounted for. Like we do already.
So the scenario you posit has about as much chance as us not "weaponinzing space".
Mods/Metamods:
The parent post is not insighful, it is dead wrong. There is no insight in dreaming of a scenario and ignoring reality to proclaim it a likely disaster.
Oh, wait we already have air-based weapons platforms. B1, B-52, Cruise missiles, ICBMS (which happen to travel through space, btw), U2, F117, F16, F14, F15, F/A-18, and so on.
We have "weaponized" every environment we go into. Air, land, sea. Not only is space weaponry inevitable (esp. since it has already happened), it is not a detriment to us any more than any other environment we've done it in.
But ultimately, yes, if we want to protect against wandering asteroids, comets, and such, yes we do need space weapons. You don't get an earthbound 100 ton rock to miss the Earth by asking politely, Bruce Willis ain't gettin any younger, and in case you haven't noticed the aging shuttle wouldn't be up to the task anyway.
A space weapons race will come in handy when we determine the big rocks are headed this way. if for no other reason, this is enough.
I am saying that the republicans are to blame for the majority of rights stripped from humans after 911. They control the executive, the legislative, and many claim the judiciary as well. What has come into being since taking control is theirs alone to shoulder the blame for.
I hold both of them to blame. The Dems have tools available to them to stop a simple majority from doing these things, but they went along with it.
My point is that it didn't matter which party was in power, either of them would have done what has been done. Neither party cares a whit for the constitution or my rights beyond opportunities to poke hypocritically at the other.
The dems could have used a filibuster to stop the patriot act. They chose not to. They could have mounted a public campaign regarding unconstitutionality in the act, but they did not. Some of the Dems' only complaints about the PA is "who gets to use it". They don't have a problem with the power being there, just that they don't get to wield it (for now).
If the Dems took over we'd still have the PA. They won't get rid of it either.
Out of 100 Senators, only two did not vote for it: one against and one abstained/not voted. In the House, a mere 66 voted against it.
The Dems had an opportunity to stop it, or at least to delay it long enough for debate and inspection to occurr. They did not do so. They chose to go along with it. Thus, they are no less to blame than the Republicans.
It is doubtful that Clinton would have received all that was given in the Patriot Bill.
Why? The republicans controlled part of the congress then and would have voted for it for the same reasons the dems did this time: politics. They get to look like they did something. Nevermind that they didn't get to read what they were doing.
His attack using cruise missles upon a camp in Afghanistan, when he had intelligence that bin Laden was there was often referred to as "wagging the dog".
Irrelevant. We are talking about a clear, unmistakable attack on American soil event. No Republican congress critter would have made such a claims post-9/11. Extremists outside of congress, sure, just as they have done regarding Bush (the government did it types). But to claim that any congress critter would have made that assertion after that event is ludicrous. It would be political suicide.
Ashcroft, as a Senator, helped to shoot down lawful roving wiretaps being inserted into crime omnibus bills, voting no to amendments on multiple ocassions.
And what did ole Ashy do after 9/11? Changed his tune, that's what. What logical basis do we have to beleive he'd have done differently had it been a couple years prior? None.
It is also doubful that the Clinton Administration would have had the audacity to claim they needed these extreme methods right after they had miserbly failed to perform their duty of defending America.
Surely you jest. Clinton was *trying* to get these things. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed by republicans and signed by Clinton. Much of what is in the USAPATRIOT Act was voted down when part of the ARDPA. It allowed the INS to deport immigrants based on secret evidence, made it a crime to support the lawful activities of any group the state department labeled a "terrorist organization," and eliminated federal constitutional review of state death penalty cases. it is considered by most to be the precursor to the USAPATRIOT Act.
Clinton and the Democrats, assuming there was any resistance, would have painted the Repubs as against the protection of the US by opposing it. Heck they used that same tactic in the nineties. To beleive they would have done differently post-9/11 on their watch is ludicrous.
there is still no justifiable reason for the government enabling themselves with these extra powers.
Agreed.
Though the 4th is hardly alone in violations here. the existence of the FCC and its mission violates the constitution. The constitution gives the fedgov no authority for such a department.
We've been hearing about the so-called real estate bubble for what, 15+ years now? Eventually those predicting it will be able to claim victory ... just as a stopped clock can do every so often.
...
From your linked site:
A major sign that we are in a housing bubble is the fact that fewer people can afford homes.
Yet home ownership has been on the rise and is still rising. How can you square this fact with the previous claim?
Further
Home equity has diminished significantly as we are consuming our free cash rather than paying off our mortgages. Simply stated, frivolous consumers are maxed out on credit. Since 1995 national mortgage debt has risen from $4 trillion to $7 trillion! In just 2002, $820 billion was borrowed! If this isn't a sign of a housing bubble, than I don't know what is
Well, he got one thing right: he doesn't know what a (sign of a) housing bubble is. How much of that is refinancing, how much is home equity loans?
Further, there is no mention of a fundamental change in housing lending that IMO is a key factor driving increased home ownership rates: down payment reduction. He/they mention the debt/value ratio is higher, but fails to note that it takes far less of a downpayment to get into a home today. In many cases, you can get into a home with a down payment no more than a couple grand - barely 3%. Some cases, none at all will suffice.
The housing bubble will start to deflate when interest rates rise. Furthermore, even a slight downturn in our already feeble economy will cause an increase in mortgage delinquencies as consumers buckle from their debts.
Unless of course, those "consumers" are paying off their credit cards and lowering their monthly costs. Now, if they then max themselves back out again, they may have problems. Yet even then, they are often at lower monthly outflow than before making them more resilient to minor twiddles.
There are a lot of Disasterbators out there, and they are not limited to weather and climate, or nuclear power, but are finding homes in such places as the market. You, specifically, commit an act of deception (either by intent or by negligent forwarding of data) by saying this:
In 1989 Japanese housing bubble, housing prices tanked for 13 straight years.
What you failed to mention was there was another event that happened simultaneously: the Japanese Stock Market Crash.
From the paper from your link:
This paper shows that there is no obvious explanation for a sudden increase in the relative demand for housing which could explain the price rise.
Actually, it failed to do so and failed miserably. it failed to take into account changes in things such as house/lot size, density, house features, and so on. The house of today includes a lot more than a house of 20 years ago. it fails to account for covenants and restrictions as well as additional services provided by developers such as nearby custom parks, pools, etc.. Further items of point found lacking in the referenced material is the effect of local taxation. Properties get listed as "subdividable" by local governments and the local government then "appraises" the land at a much higher value. This raises taxation which raises price of the land.
A factor the referenced material cites is the rise of housing price in comparison to rental costs, The author is puzzled at how the differences can be so stark and attibutes it to a bubble. However, another answer is clear and obvious. Costs to construct higher density rental housing are lower than much lower density single family housing. This means more paying people per space, which means you can have lower costs and lower prices. Also, the modern trend of requiring nearly 3-4 months of rent to get into a place places a downward pressure on that rent. In some cases it costs less to buy a house than all the deposits required for renting a new place. Especially if you have pets.
A key sign that they don't
Maintaining sensor anonymity is critical because if the set of sensors is known, a malicious attacker could avoid the sensors entirely or could overwhelm the sensors with errant data.'
So basically: "Security through Obscurity is Bad." combined with "We found a way to eliminate the obscurity.".
Can anyone explain if the curent theories still speculate that eventually all the matter in the universe will be sucked up by black holes?
;)
If the universe is expanding or constant, then no. If the universe is expanding the distances involved would prevent this from happening. If the universe is constant, then again not likely due to the distances invovled. That I remember at the moment, I've not heard of any credible theories that would say that a given volume of space with a given amount of matter would create a higher net gravitic effect if the matter were concentrated at a singularity in the center. Since gravity diminishes quickly over great distance, there is a limit to how far a black hole's "pull" is.
If the Universe is shrinking (or becomes so), then probably not. Of course, if the universe is shrinking, it doesn't matter what matter is left when it compresses to infinite non-space.
That said, the idea of black holes consuming other black holes has always been interesting. At least to me.
Anyway, you asked for speculation, so you got it. Grains of salt you'll have to provide on your own.