Correct, transmission/transport is the real problem, not collection. Oil doesn't need any of those hard infrastructure costs. It's efficient (profitable) to ship it by volume over water by tankers and over land by semi-trucks. We don't need a grid infrastructure, and the solution (economically most profitable) will likely be efficient storage cells. Obviously, oil companies don't burn more oil from shipping oil then they collect from sources.
Maybe instead of collegiate engineering solar car racing competitions, we need weight pulling "monster solar" truck competitions. The engineering is mis-focused on lightweight speed rather efficient maximized weight per unit of distance. Once excess solar energy can be stored and moved from Point A to Point B by independent vehicle delivery, that should by definition mean the cost/unit of solar energy is the cheapest form of energy and market forces will naturally replace and put out of business dirtier less efficient energy sources. Digging and mining coal is expensive. Building and maintaining natural gas infrastructure pipes is even more expensive.
So what you want is energy efficient fuel cell storage technology, that can be transferred from bigger to smaller sizes, depending on product need, such as whether it's a house, car, or lawn mower. Your laptop can charge your Ipod already. So it's all about Solar Chip Storage Technology (there's a good Death Valley Tech company name). And given the technological advancement of data storage technology there's no reason you couldn't do the same for solar energy (well *all* energy forms really) storage technology. Eliminate technological innovation inhibiting copyrights and patents, and you could probably have it in under 5 years.
When solar chips can charge your phone, your.mp3 player, you can start expanding so they supplement and recycle other energy forms. Then finally you can charge your car and charge your house. And bonus chips can be put on everything, from every electronic gadget surface whether phone, car, or home roofs. And then solar will replace fossil fuels as the lowest hanging energy fruit, even if solar is insufficient for 100% of energy needs, it should be the cheapest first used energy. This will increase supply of energy, reduce the marginal unit cost, and make it too expensive for drilling and mining of higher hanging fruit energy collection to compete.
Market competition. That's the way to proceed. You want cheap green, such as solar, to beat dirty fossil fuels on economic efficiency costs. It's fundamentally an IT/Engineering storage problem.
Ain't no "we". Get your own private investors. Raise private market capital. Build your own facility. If it's profitable, it's a viable solution. If solar isn't *far* cheaper than all other forms of energy harvesting, then it isn't even remotely viable. And the expense will just be showing you that it is energy inefficient, and if it is energy and money inefficient, it's also going to be environmentally inefficient. The Sun is, after all, renewable "free".
So any percentage of solar should easily pay for itself in the free market. Your return on marginal unit of capital invested should blow Exxon's return of marginal unit of capital away. Otherwise, it's a huge red flag that it's a massive waste of time, resources, and likely causing more pollution than it supplants, just like ethanol subsidies.
Grids are expensive and security risks. A decentralized power system would be much more economically efficient, more resilient to regular local outages caused by weather storms, and much more competitive in offering consumers lower prices. Grid = Monopoly. It's economically efficient to transport oil and gasoline by tankers and by semi truck to decentralized filling stations.
When solar power can be stored and transported similarly at competitive costs to world oil distribution markets, the solar energy market will be ready. The market certainly won't be ready, won't be competitive, if you are building "super grids". That's nothing more than a massively economically inefficient subsidy (payoff) to politically connected constituents (just like ethanol farmers and processing plants).
You sound like a complete moron every time you spew the phrase "global climate change". Climate is in a constant state of flux, idiot. Exhibit A: Changing Weather. Gonna pretend you are smart by talking about "Global Time Change" for your next trick? "We have to be aware that the clock is ticking, time is changing, time is moving, we are no longer statically frozen in time. By the time you finish reading this sentence the present will have become the past./Alarm!!!111"
disputing the current global climate change This is precisely why your loss of credibility is globally accelerating.
But feel free to make yourself useful and post the climate model average earth temperature formula with it's various input weighted variables. Not a single religious creationist man-made global warming zealot believer has been able to produce any formula with any variables whilst they talk completely out of their asses about changing average temperatures without reference to the vast majority of heaviest weighted variables determining global average temperature. That people like you pretend they are scientifically informed is laughable. Clue # 1: sticking a thermometer in your anus does not measure global average temperature, or give you anything put data trash to plug into whatever secret socialist alarmist formula which isn't dared presented to the public.
It's nothing but a pure hoax. And it will be extremely evident once the formula of global average temperature variables weightings is exposed. Which is precisely why no idiots like you have been able to provide a link to the global average temperature model formula climalarmitologists pretend to be referencing when they talk about predicted and even "observed" changes in the output variable global average temperature.
Climatologists are nothing more than creationists who pretend call themselves "scientists". That's why nobody has seen a real weighted variable formula showing the output = average earth temperature, and all the various input variables properly weighted, such as Sun, such as man-made CO^2, etc.
They have nothing but the worst sort of skewed data trash plugged into socialist alarmist formulas. It's been *years*, and not a single dumb ass fool who pretends to believe man-made global warming is real has been able to produce the simple climate model upon which temperature change is based.
Anybody with 2% of a brain realizes in 1 minute these socialist climatologists are smoking crack, and exhaling their "studies" as quickly as possible to bamboozle people.
I ask anyone, let's see the formula which says man-made activity changes the average temperature by 25%! This is precisely why nobody will dare release an actual climate model temperature formula in any media reports or UN official documentation. Man = 25% of the cause of the Earth Temperature, Sun = 70%, and Karl Marx legacy = the other 5%. These are the biggest buffoons of a "scientific" profession in all of history, and climatology will be lampooned for decades if not centuries to come.
Just because you personally are a sucker for phony bullshit, doesn't mean others are. And we are quite sick and tired of your bullshit, sick and tired of your hidden socialist agenda. New rule, if you yourself don't have a climate model temperature formula with weighted variables STFU, dumbass.
Reduce the human population by 90% (preferably using a humane manner; like fewer babies). Instead of 6 billion, you'll have 600 million. There will be plenty of resources for everyone to go around, and pollution will be decreased by 90% of current levels. A higher human population increases wealth. Volcanoes don't erupt fully furnished houses. Oceans don't wash up technological innovation. And the stork doesn't deliver 1.2376 of a baby human being to newlywed couples. There's plenty of resources for 6 billion humans, in spite of all the vast economic damage and waste caused by socialist government policies. See the division of labor.
TFG for the internet. Finally all these so-called "mainstream" liberals and leftists can have their religious doctrines not just exposed, but shattered, by real science. "Global warming" (now "global climate *change*") climatologists, socialist "economist" commentators are on the same intellectual level as creationists, even as they pad their resumes with churn and burn statistical fluff and self-congratulatory awards in academia. It's high time they were exposed. And these leftist wackos have no compunction whatsoever with instituting socialist government mandated behavior control on the reproduction choices of others, as evidenced by this little-Stalin I'm replying to talking about "fixing overpopulation".
That's why leftists constantly have to lie and make stuff up to try to be taken seriously. Because at heart they are petty jealous tyrants who don't value the freedom of others.
You are correct. All taxation causes net society poverty. All free trade increases wealth for all parties voluntarily trading: that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. If taxation alleviated poverty in the slightest, then everybody taxing everybody else would increase wealth for everybody. But that's absurd. If it's not being voluntarily funded, it's junk, worth less than the things which are and would be voluntarily funded.
The liberals who cry for ever bigger social programs to fight poverty are stupidly only causing more poverty to be *caused*. They should be beaten and locked away for being negligent, stupid, and guilty of causing harm to the fellow citizens as a whole.
As soon as we eliminate all imaginary property laws, we eliminate all privacy laws. (It's epistemologically impossible for privacy to exist anyway, just as it's epistemologically impossible for imaginary property to exist). And we strap mandatory 24/7 audio/visual surveillance on all government officials (that should be the price for daring to govern). Now we can directly first hand listen to all the conversations between lobbyists and elected or appointed political officials. Such privacy for meetings with lobbyists should be illegal anyway and is a direct threat to the national security interests of all voters. (This is necessary Homeland Security Compliance -- put little HSC compliance stickers on the politicians so they are certified like an "Intel Inside" sticker). Judges will also be subject to this.
Some confidential conversations can be filtered by Judges warrants if they pertain to matters of National Security, but they must be meeting during officially sanctioned events, such as a closed door Armed Services Committee meeting, or be in outlined by law cabinet positions and be certified for special closed door time slots).
And any business that collects private data can likewise be targeted by similarly following the children of those businesses owners legally in white surveillance vans. And there are still harassment and stalking laws which can be extended into the electronic realm.
See what you could accomplish if you embrace the methodology and merely universally apply it under Equal Protection Under the Law standards?
Identify theft itself costs a company nothing since it's the consumer getting shafted in the end. This need to be addressed and changed so that businesses are responsible and liable for committing or being complicit accessories to fraud and extortion against consumers. It's the business who was ripped off, who is trying to artificially hold an uninvolved innocent third party responsible for its lax security standards. You think any bank is going to just say "oh well" if somebody sells a forged deed for their physical building to a duped buyer? Yeah, I'm going to demand their bonds be lowered from aaa to ccc rating by credit ratings agencies and cost them billions of dollars in higher interest payments (that's exactly what banks do to consumers!). They are also committing torts when they falsely ruin the credit records of consumers, and they should be held liable for this.
And there is plenty of witnesses to call in the form of extremely negligent cashiers that could care less about even verifying credit card identities. The Banks have just bought blame, have artificially dumped their losses on innocent third parties. And they may also be guilty of evidence tampering by getting rid of in store video evidence that clearly shows the person making the transaction was not the identity theft victim.
If anyone's going to trade information about me (i.e. what shows I watch, what books I read, what demographic group I belong to, etc.) I want to make money off it too. I demand my cut, just like the RIAA/MPAA demands their cut. Screw the cut. How about cease and desist and takedown notices to the likes of doubleclick and Google along with $150,000 per infringement fines for using your personal "imaginary property" private data without express permission, notification, or consent. This is nothing less than illegal trafficking, copying, and reselling of the information data of others. And it's possible that collecting is also in violation of the DMCA in so far as it circumvents fire walls and installs programs on the user's machines and/or tracking profiles.
I'm looking to open the copyright troll floodgates that has media companies begging for the elimination of all copyright laws. And at a minimum, we should be able to generate support for passage of a Do Not Track Registry similar to the Do Not Call list, and add $150,000 per infringement fines to these laws.
And if these companies think EULAs are legally binding (and they are wholesale ripping off and exploiting the work of others with even worse compensation than RIAA artists receive -- and some of these individuals are minor children) it's time to start putting in EULA watermarks on every file declaring any legal notification regarding the transmission of said files waves all legal liability and ownership claims to the referenced property claims for all parties in the transmission of said files. And wala... consent is deemed given in exactly the same manner as any EULA.
Slop it, mash it, screw it, divide and conquer by turning the bogus laws they pass upon each other.
Exactly, as prior international case law demonstrates that increasing the length of the copyright right term is legitimate under the provisions of the Berne Treaty, so to is therefore changing the length of the copyright term to ZERO legitimate. There is also precedent for differing terms for individual national rules under the Berne Convention. So this treaty is a hot air balloon just waiting to be poked by any and all national changes to copyright law.
And this Berne Convention International Copyright Treaty is itself *illegal* under United States law, as the length of copyright terms are unconstitutionally not contemporary limited. Maybe we don't even need an actual copyright infringement case to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and can just directly attack Berne itself.
See the recent Texas death penalty case and international law. Once the Copyright Laws are ruled unconstitutional on length of term and excessive fine grounds, the Berne Convention too will be in the target cross-hairs. And once the US is folded out of Berne, separate international movements will do vast damage to world-wide attempts at standards and control.
They already can't enforce the laws on the books, because they are PR disasters, that only constantly serve to diminish the credibility of the law. The big media content owners are starting to run scared, as well they should be. Look at the comments regarding yesterday's study that 95% of 18-24 year olds copy content illegally. Nothing but solid contempt for these insane copyright laws. The tide is shifting, and politicians voting to screw consumers will be assuming ever higher political liability for doing so.
This is all good. These people are the evil cousins to the ultimate evil international bankers without any country loyalty or concern for consumers who confiscated real money world-wide and instituted fiat paper money debt control. They finance wars, they could care less who is at war as long as there is war somewhere from which to profit through the issuance of debt and confiscation through bankruptcy. And ultimately, the war on copyright is just the warm up battle to the war on fiat paper money. They are just printing control and printing taxation at will, at the expense of disparate international citizens. It's nothing put pure theft of the wealth which is the property of culture, of all, just like free speech and free trade.
Perhaps other countries will now better understand American disdain for the United Nations when they see other international institutions like the IMF, WB, and now the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They are there to finance themselves by legalized theft against your rights.
People pay property taxes. That's more than enough to have foot the bill for laying fiber optic cables and pipes. It really is just another tube running next to the water and natural gas pipes. But unlike roads, where you can go where you want to go when you want to go, total monopoly ownership of essential networks only results in price gouging and inferior service. I'm just suggesting a "triple play" network infrastructure that is a combination of private consumer, public municipality owned, and private business serviced with no contractual limit to future and further business service competition. We can have tiered internet pricing when we have tiered public roads usage taxation, including triple the cost yearly license plate fees for SUVs, and 4 or 5 digit license fees for semi trucks.
But if wireless networks are a real viable alternative, then all the cable being laid by the likes of Verizon FIOS may be a huge capital waste. It must be somehow workable if satellite works, and then in that case, the consumers can completely cut out the likes of Comcast. Now I'm curious if Comcast has done any lobbying to get city wireless projects killed. Do you think the cellular phone companies could compete directly with Comcast on television and internet delivery? What kind of network infrastructure costs? Hmmm, maybe that could be a lot cheaper than fiber optic cable and really kill Comcast. If cell phone companies could offer triple play phone service, television, and internet, that could be a very real free market solution to much improving things.
This is the real mistake, making agreements that grant ownership of the cables, ownership of the pipes, to monopoly companies. But I guess since all State and local governments have squandered and paid off all their lobby and union friends, the tax revenue collected for ostensibly public services like roads, water, gas, electricity, it's now the only way any construction or service maintenance can be done for any type of network infrastructure. All these pipes should have been privately owned under each suburban driveway, privately owned under each urban apartment building, publicly owned under each city street, and business owned at any point connecting into that serviced or partly serviced network area. Then you could have multiple companies competing to service those connections, whether it was internet, whether it was electricity, whether it was water, whether it was natural gas.
The politicians are the very first one to look to sell monopolies of dependence, as that is where they will "earn" their bread and butter living, both above and below the table. If every individual paid the $500 or even $1,000 per residence in capital construction costs for the cable lines, they'd probably earn back that investment in cheaper competitive offerings within at most a couple years. All you need to do is look at Comcast's balance sheet to see the massive profit they are raking from those meager construction capital outlays.
So privatize the tubes! Confiscate those network construction capital outlays after they have returned 100% or 200% profit to the cable companies, to the natural gas companies, to the electricity companies. When is the last time the construction company that built your city and subdivision roads posted speed limit signs and put up traffic lights to collect revenues and or issue tickets on their own? "I'm sorry Mr. Johnson, you have entered and exited your local subdivision road more than your allocated 20 times weekly limit. We are booting your vehicle."
Every local government can grab Comcast by the balls at contract renewal by threatening to terminate their "franchise". Is Comcast going to not service their own cables? (It was complete government interference bullshit in the first place to even hoodwink the citizenry into believing Comcast wouldn't have invested in the network infrastructure -- obviously it's pretty profitable -- and if it's profitable for any Company, it's profitable for every individual residence owner.) If anything these franchise contracts deserve more scrutiny and can serve a possible basis for localized in loco FCC-erentice complaints and action. Fuck em. Pass local laws and citizen utility boards that can fine, conscript, or confiscate local Comcast cables for legitimate complaints of substandard service or price gouging rates. Why are big market cities like Chicago paying the same revenue/line as other suburban locations that require more expensive lengths of cable? Governments need revenue. School Districts need revenue. I call my plan Finetastic!
And if I were Comcast, I'd be careful of causing your customers to be massively pissed off. Because in these days of government competition of importing all the "headline laws" from other jurisdictions one can, if New York does it, there will be a copycat effect all the way to Fresno, California.
And thus, I would also use the self professed Comcast FCC Warning that they are not subject to the FCC as legal basis for State and local regulation.
Triple Play is the way to attack Comcast's marketing. There's a lot of competition to Comcast's own VoIP offering. Comcast blows AT&T marketing spam away with their attempts to pad the monthly bill paid by consumers. We could easily cause a massive amount of revenue damage by getting all customers of Comcast to drop the Comcast VoIP and replace it with a competitor service, such as Vonage.
Comcast is going to be ever more dependent on the $25-$33 for this service in their marginal revenue. If you want to attack Comcast, in spite of their monopoly cable television and internet monopoly, this is what you focus on. That's more than enough to crush Comcast's throttling plans. So focus on spreading the word to get every you know who is stuck with Comcast to sign up to a competitor VoIP plan.
I could see a successful strategy of generating a mass Comcast VoIP boycott costing them around a quarter of a billion dollars in yearly revenue. Also a class action lawsuit on the change of service fees might be doable.
Also keep pushing the FCC on ala carte cable channels. The quicker cable television channels are commoditized, the better. And ever channel at ala carte price better damn well add up *exactly* to the package prices. I'm sure both the FCC and FTC would be *very* interested to discover ala carte price gouging.
If there are no legal repercussions or consequences, financial or otherwise, for false or mistaken DMCA takedown notices, then file DMCA takedown notices against all the original content after making your parody. Serve iTunes with notice to remove the Village People as a sellable.mp3 file. I mean hell, if you don't have to check the actual content to discern whether the content is actually infringing, and just go by the titles, then those original titles might very well be infringing the copyrighted parodies. These companies cannot sell your parodies for profit without express permission or compensation.:P
Now you've got a fair War, and can start doing some real economic damage against these companies abusing copyright.
If legal messages are copyrighted, can't you then justly refuse to read them, and have them tossed as legally binding and/or compliant with Court notification standards?
Exactly. Musicians and actors did more than any other group to forge a defiance of authority attitude. They still try to do this rampantly even today. And when they complain about "piracy" it makes the artists images look w~e~a~k. Metallica becomes whiny New Kids on the Block. Rappers lose all their "stop snitching" anti-police street credibility. Were talking about pop marketing, and the music industry has lost tons of street credibility and artists are guilty by association.
This is also a huge reason why the music industry has no moral credibility with which to complain about piracy. They've been pushing a pirate attitude and a pirate image for decades. Hence, Fuck the RIAA. The consumers are now more bad ass than the artists. So sad, lol. And now even the likes of Snoop Doggy Dogg need to try to sing like Neo with offering like "Sensual Seduction". It's effen vodka marketing hilarious.
consider any time you may have spent working in retail, or a service industry, where you produced nothing of "value." We don't consider that work worthless in our society. We also don't pay retail workers in perpetuity for service work they did helping the customer twenty years ago. And billions of occurrences of "theft" of the phrase "Hi. Can I help you?" have deprived the first retail helper to invent helping the customer by asking and answering questions of his alleged just compensation from his "property". Let musicians be hired by music corporations to produce music at an hourly salary. If they don't produce, they get fired. Then they can have nine to five jobs with salaries, benefits, and retirement plans. Schedule their time into practice, production, autographing, performing. And subject them to drug tests. If you fail a drug test, or show up for work drunk, you lose your copyright protection, since they are after all government employees working for the societal "advancement of the arts" and shielded from distribution competition. How'd that be?
You are exactly right. It's about time artists are held accountable for their fair share of blame. They've been let off the hook, and allowed to skate because they complain how they are screwed by record company contracts. They never once complained about the insane length of term increases to copyright. And plenty of artists like to call their fans thieves. It's high time we call out the artists who are making money from 30, 40, and 50 year old material the public domain thieves they are. Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, et al are stealing culture from future generations of kids, making it more scarce and higher priced.
None of theses artists didn't rip off the artistic ideas of other artists either. Their claims of copyright, their claims of originality, their claims of art, are pure delusions of fantasy. Welcome to the internetz. Don't give these people money even if they are independent. Don't go to their concerts (if they cost money). Don't buy their cds. Don't buy their merchandise. Artists need to themselves start demanding an end to the copyright insanity. We need a better filter than just they are not an RIAA label. Perhaps a signature Declaration of Free Culture enumerating 21st century expectations of the use and compensation for ideas can be circulated through the musician community to put individual artists in the clear, and their material safe to purchase, if they sign the document. Said petition can then be used as counter RIAA propaganda and testimony for sane law changes, first and foremost a reduction in the length of the term of monopoly distribution grant to equal or less than the length of patents.
Society will be much better off in the long run if we starve and burn the food supply of musicians for 10-20 years.
Any time you incorporate my work into a product that you are selling, you're making money off my work. Any time you claim ownership over something you say in public, you are attempting to claim ownership of the ears of others. Your copyright claims are making ownership claims on the physical property and Persons of others, by prohibiting the property of others from being similarly or exactly shaped to your property. This is done without compensation, and is a wholly offensive trespass.
Did any of the artists care about any of the consumers losing all of their public domain contemporary return benefit rights when copyright was extended from 14 years to life plus 50 years? Did they care in the slightest that artists making money from selling songs 30, 40, and 50 years old are *stealing* from the public? No. So no consumer should care if any artist gets 100% of his work stolen and can't make a single cent. It's called Justice.
I know the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't pertain to civil trials but in this case that's what it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. A.) The fines for civil damages are set by federal statute.
B.) They are excessive.
C.) Therefore, unconstitutional.
It certainly does apply to Civil Trial when damages are a priori set by Federal Statute, juries are instructed, biased, and beholden to not awarding actual damages, which according to recent Supreme Court cases, are deemed excessive at more than three times the actual damage amount. So any penalty greater than $3 per infringed song is unconstitutional, let alone $150,000 fines for $1 (not even *proved*) actual damages.
I don't know about that anymore. You are starting to talk huge political downside if you start directly publicly advocating for the RIAA now (except perhaps in a few Hollywood districts). You have tons of pissed off students and tons of pissed off academic administrators who have let it be known they are very unhappy with the heavy handed RIAA techniques and threats to academic freedom. I'd say in at least 80% of political districts advocating for the RIAA would be akin to advocating for Big Tobacco. Judges don't like to be hoodwinked and humiliated either.
More and more this whole issue is threatening to blow up, and no doubt there will be massive political collateral damage if it does. Just ask the Republican Party how the Ron Paul supporters did with barely any organization and time in the political primary process. It will be a hell of a lot more targeted, organized, and effective the next time four years from now.
But let them buy all the unconstitutional laws they want. Those exact same laws can be confiscated and used against them (1 million or 10 million people can be copyright trolls for very little expense, and it could pay, just like it pays for patent trolls), and when the tide of public opinion turns, it will turn hard (they are a cast full of sleazy and greedy lawyers, executives, and overpaid artists with almost no redeeming sympathetic propaganda figures). Their propaganda campaigns arouse contempt. And an Anti-Copyright Abuse Political Action Committee might be able to raise Ron Paul amounts of money to run targeted negative ads against a list of the 20 worst bought Congressmen, and possibly defeat 50-75% of them. I could see such targeting swinging election results a good 5-10% in those districts, well enough to cause effective change. And it's an issue that can slice without regard to political party affiliation. You have a huge untapped younger voter base that is mobilizing, that would certainly go out and vote to defeat pro-RIAA candidates. And Senators up for re-election would be even easier State-wide targets.
The game is up, and everyone knows it. The RIAA is going to start sustaining a more and more egregious reputation even in sell out DC city, especially as legal abuse losses start mounting. Congressmen aren't politically stupid. Don't think they haven't noticed the rising up of student legal groups and independent academic institution mobilization. Don't think they didn't notice Comcast bend over just now on targeted throttling (even under an alleged anti-"piracy" justification).
And keep not buying or buying less music. Why should you care about any artists? Did any of those artists give the slightest damn when bribes stole away from you the contemporary limited bargain return of the advancement of arts into the public domain, even as you gave up your First Amendment free speech rights to copy and were forced to welfare subsidize their campaign of artificial monopoly scarcity greed and abuse through the resources of your government? They are all greedy fucks, wanting to milk you continuously for stuff that is 30 and 40 years old. Starve the bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, transmission/transport is the real problem, not collection. Oil doesn't need any of those hard infrastructure costs. It's efficient (profitable) to ship it by volume over water by tankers and over land by semi-trucks. We don't need a grid infrastructure, and the solution (economically most profitable) will likely be efficient storage cells. Obviously, oil companies don't burn more oil from shipping oil then they collect from sources.
.mp3 player, you can start expanding so they supplement and recycle other energy forms. Then finally you can charge your car and charge your house. And bonus chips can be put on everything, from every electronic gadget surface whether phone, car, or home roofs. And then solar will replace fossil fuels as the lowest hanging energy fruit, even if solar is insufficient for 100% of energy needs, it should be the cheapest first used energy. This will increase supply of energy, reduce the marginal unit cost, and make it too expensive for drilling and mining of higher hanging fruit energy collection to compete.
Maybe instead of collegiate engineering solar car racing competitions, we need weight pulling "monster solar" truck competitions. The engineering is mis-focused on lightweight speed rather efficient maximized weight per unit of distance. Once excess solar energy can be stored and moved from Point A to Point B by independent vehicle delivery, that should by definition mean the cost/unit of solar energy is the cheapest form of energy and market forces will naturally replace and put out of business dirtier less efficient energy sources. Digging and mining coal is expensive. Building and maintaining natural gas infrastructure pipes is even more expensive.
So what you want is energy efficient fuel cell storage technology, that can be transferred from bigger to smaller sizes, depending on product need, such as whether it's a house, car, or lawn mower. Your laptop can charge your Ipod already. So it's all about Solar Chip Storage Technology (there's a good Death Valley Tech company name). And given the technological advancement of data storage technology there's no reason you couldn't do the same for solar energy (well *all* energy forms really) storage technology. Eliminate technological innovation inhibiting copyrights and patents, and you could probably have it in under 5 years.
When solar chips can charge your phone, your
Market competition. That's the way to proceed. You want cheap green, such as solar, to beat dirty fossil fuels on economic efficiency costs. It's fundamentally an IT/Engineering storage problem.
Ain't no "we". Get your own private investors. Raise private market capital. Build your own facility. If it's profitable, it's a viable solution. If solar isn't *far* cheaper than all other forms of energy harvesting, then it isn't even remotely viable. And the expense will just be showing you that it is energy inefficient, and if it is energy and money inefficient, it's also going to be environmentally inefficient. The Sun is, after all, renewable "free".
So any percentage of solar should easily pay for itself in the free market. Your return on marginal unit of capital invested should blow Exxon's return of marginal unit of capital away. Otherwise, it's a huge red flag that it's a massive waste of time, resources, and likely causing more pollution than it supplants, just like ethanol subsidies.
Grids are expensive and security risks. A decentralized power system would be much more economically efficient, more resilient to regular local outages caused by weather storms, and much more competitive in offering consumers lower prices. Grid = Monopoly. It's economically efficient to transport oil and gasoline by tankers and by semi truck to decentralized filling stations.
When solar power can be stored and transported similarly at competitive costs to world oil distribution markets, the solar energy market will be ready. The market certainly won't be ready, won't be competitive, if you are building "super grids". That's nothing more than a massively economically inefficient subsidy (payoff) to politically connected constituents (just like ethanol farmers and processing plants).
But feel free to make yourself useful and post the climate model average earth temperature formula with it's various input weighted variables. Not a single religious creationist man-made global warming zealot believer has been able to produce any formula with any variables whilst they talk completely out of their asses about changing average temperatures without reference to the vast majority of heaviest weighted variables determining global average temperature. That people like you pretend they are scientifically informed is laughable. Clue # 1: sticking a thermometer in your anus does not measure global average temperature, or give you anything put data trash to plug into whatever secret socialist alarmist formula which isn't dared presented to the public.
It's nothing but a pure hoax. And it will be extremely evident once the formula of global average temperature variables weightings is exposed. Which is precisely why no idiots like you have been able to provide a link to the global average temperature model formula climalarmitologists pretend to be referencing when they talk about predicted and even "observed" changes in the output variable global average temperature.
Climatologists are nothing more than creationists who pretend call themselves "scientists". That's why nobody has seen a real weighted variable formula showing the output = average earth temperature, and all the various input variables properly weighted, such as Sun, such as man-made CO^2, etc.
They have nothing but the worst sort of skewed data trash plugged into socialist alarmist formulas. It's been *years*, and not a single dumb ass fool who pretends to believe man-made global warming is real has been able to produce the simple climate model upon which temperature change is based.
Anybody with 2% of a brain realizes in 1 minute these socialist climatologists are smoking crack, and exhaling their "studies" as quickly as possible to bamboozle people.
I ask anyone, let's see the formula which says man-made activity changes the average temperature by 25%! This is precisely why nobody will dare release an actual climate model temperature formula in any media reports or UN official documentation. Man = 25% of the cause of the Earth Temperature, Sun = 70%, and Karl Marx legacy = the other 5%. These are the biggest buffoons of a "scientific" profession in all of history, and climatology will be lampooned for decades if not centuries to come.
Just because you personally are a sucker for phony bullshit, doesn't mean others are. And we are quite sick and tired of your bullshit, sick and tired of your hidden socialist agenda. New rule, if you yourself don't have a climate model temperature formula with weighted variables STFU, dumbass.
TFG for the internet. Finally all these so-called "mainstream" liberals and leftists can have their religious doctrines not just exposed, but shattered, by real science. "Global warming" (now "global climate *change*") climatologists, socialist "economist" commentators are on the same intellectual level as creationists, even as they pad their resumes with churn and burn statistical fluff and self-congratulatory awards in academia. It's high time they were exposed. And these leftist wackos have no compunction whatsoever with instituting socialist government mandated behavior control on the reproduction choices of others, as evidenced by this little-Stalin I'm replying to talking about "fixing overpopulation".
That's why leftists constantly have to lie and make stuff up to try to be taken seriously. Because at heart they are petty jealous tyrants who don't value the freedom of others.
You are correct. All taxation causes net society poverty. All free trade increases wealth for all parties voluntarily trading: that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. If taxation alleviated poverty in the slightest, then everybody taxing everybody else would increase wealth for everybody. But that's absurd. If it's not being voluntarily funded, it's junk, worth less than the things which are and would be voluntarily funded.
The liberals who cry for ever bigger social programs to fight poverty are stupidly only causing more poverty to be *caused*. They should be beaten and locked away for being negligent, stupid, and guilty of causing harm to the fellow citizens as a whole.
It does.
As soon as we eliminate all imaginary property laws, we eliminate all privacy laws. (It's epistemologically impossible for privacy to exist anyway, just as it's epistemologically impossible for imaginary property to exist). And we strap mandatory 24/7 audio/visual surveillance on all government officials (that should be the price for daring to govern). Now we can directly first hand listen to all the conversations between lobbyists and elected or appointed political officials. Such privacy for meetings with lobbyists should be illegal anyway and is a direct threat to the national security interests of all voters. (This is necessary Homeland Security Compliance -- put little HSC compliance stickers on the politicians so they are certified like an "Intel Inside" sticker). Judges will also be subject to this.
Some confidential conversations can be filtered by Judges warrants if they pertain to matters of National Security, but they must be meeting during officially sanctioned events, such as a closed door Armed Services Committee meeting, or be in outlined by law cabinet positions and be certified for special closed door time slots).
And any business that collects private data can likewise be targeted by similarly following the children of those businesses owners legally in white surveillance vans. And there are still harassment and stalking laws which can be extended into the electronic realm.
See what you could accomplish if you embrace the methodology and merely universally apply it under Equal Protection Under the Law standards?
And there is plenty of witnesses to call in the form of extremely negligent cashiers that could care less about even verifying credit card identities. The Banks have just bought blame, have artificially dumped their losses on innocent third parties. And they may also be guilty of evidence tampering by getting rid of in store video evidence that clearly shows the person making the transaction was not the identity theft victim.
I'm looking to open the copyright troll floodgates that has media companies begging for the elimination of all copyright laws. And at a minimum, we should be able to generate support for passage of a Do Not Track Registry similar to the Do Not Call list, and add $150,000 per infringement fines to these laws.
And if these companies think EULAs are legally binding (and they are wholesale ripping off and exploiting the work of others with even worse compensation than RIAA artists receive -- and some of these individuals are minor children) it's time to start putting in EULA watermarks on every file declaring any legal notification regarding the transmission of said files waves all legal liability and ownership claims to the referenced property claims for all parties in the transmission of said files. And wala
Slop it, mash it, screw it, divide and conquer by turning the bogus laws they pass upon each other.
Exactly, as prior international case law demonstrates that increasing the length of the copyright right term is legitimate under the provisions of the Berne Treaty, so to is therefore changing the length of the copyright term to ZERO legitimate. There is also precedent for differing terms for individual national rules under the Berne Convention. So this treaty is a hot air balloon just waiting to be poked by any and all national changes to copyright law.
And this Berne Convention International Copyright Treaty is itself *illegal* under United States law, as the length of copyright terms are unconstitutionally not contemporary limited. Maybe we don't even need an actual copyright infringement case to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and can just directly attack Berne itself.
It's a perfect example of how artists feel they can "steal" the ideas of others whenever they please without giving the slightest damn.
See the recent Texas death penalty case and international law. Once the Copyright Laws are ruled unconstitutional on length of term and excessive fine grounds, the Berne Convention too will be in the target cross-hairs. And once the US is folded out of Berne, separate international movements will do vast damage to world-wide attempts at standards and control.
They already can't enforce the laws on the books, because they are PR disasters, that only constantly serve to diminish the credibility of the law. The big media content owners are starting to run scared, as well they should be. Look at the comments regarding yesterday's study that 95% of 18-24 year olds copy content illegally. Nothing but solid contempt for these insane copyright laws. The tide is shifting, and politicians voting to screw consumers will be assuming ever higher political liability for doing so.
This is all good. These people are the evil cousins to the ultimate evil international bankers without any country loyalty or concern for consumers who confiscated real money world-wide and instituted fiat paper money debt control. They finance wars, they could care less who is at war as long as there is war somewhere from which to profit through the issuance of debt and confiscation through bankruptcy. And ultimately, the war on copyright is just the warm up battle to the war on fiat paper money. They are just printing control and printing taxation at will, at the expense of disparate international citizens. It's nothing put pure theft of the wealth which is the property of culture, of all, just like free speech and free trade.
Perhaps other countries will now better understand American disdain for the United Nations when they see other international institutions like the IMF, WB, and now the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They are there to finance themselves by legalized theft against your rights.
People pay property taxes. That's more than enough to have foot the bill for laying fiber optic cables and pipes. It really is just another tube running next to the water and natural gas pipes. But unlike roads, where you can go where you want to go when you want to go, total monopoly ownership of essential networks only results in price gouging and inferior service. I'm just suggesting a "triple play" network infrastructure that is a combination of private consumer, public municipality owned, and private business serviced with no contractual limit to future and further business service competition. We can have tiered internet pricing when we have tiered public roads usage taxation, including triple the cost yearly license plate fees for SUVs, and 4 or 5 digit license fees for semi trucks.
But if wireless networks are a real viable alternative, then all the cable being laid by the likes of Verizon FIOS may be a huge capital waste. It must be somehow workable if satellite works, and then in that case, the consumers can completely cut out the likes of Comcast. Now I'm curious if Comcast has done any lobbying to get city wireless projects killed. Do you think the cellular phone companies could compete directly with Comcast on television and internet delivery? What kind of network infrastructure costs? Hmmm, maybe that could be a lot cheaper than fiber optic cable and really kill Comcast. If cell phone companies could offer triple play phone service, television, and internet, that could be a very real free market solution to much improving things.
This is the real mistake, making agreements that grant ownership of the cables, ownership of the pipes, to monopoly companies. But I guess since all State and local governments have squandered and paid off all their lobby and union friends, the tax revenue collected for ostensibly public services like roads, water, gas, electricity, it's now the only way any construction or service maintenance can be done for any type of network infrastructure. All these pipes should have been privately owned under each suburban driveway, privately owned under each urban apartment building, publicly owned under each city street, and business owned at any point connecting into that serviced or partly serviced network area. Then you could have multiple companies competing to service those connections, whether it was internet, whether it was electricity, whether it was water, whether it was natural gas.
The politicians are the very first one to look to sell monopolies of dependence, as that is where they will "earn" their bread and butter living, both above and below the table. If every individual paid the $500 or even $1,000 per residence in capital construction costs for the cable lines, they'd probably earn back that investment in cheaper competitive offerings within at most a couple years. All you need to do is look at Comcast's balance sheet to see the massive profit they are raking from those meager construction capital outlays.
So privatize the tubes! Confiscate those network construction capital outlays after they have returned 100% or 200% profit to the cable companies, to the natural gas companies, to the electricity companies. When is the last time the construction company that built your city and subdivision roads posted speed limit signs and put up traffic lights to collect revenues and or issue tickets on their own? "I'm sorry Mr. Johnson, you have entered and exited your local subdivision road more than your allocated 20 times weekly limit. We are booting your vehicle."
Every local government can grab Comcast by the balls at contract renewal by threatening to terminate their "franchise". Is Comcast going to not service their own cables? (It was complete government interference bullshit in the first place to even hoodwink the citizenry into believing Comcast wouldn't have invested in the network infrastructure -- obviously it's pretty profitable -- and if it's profitable for any Company, it's profitable for every individual residence owner.) If anything these franchise contracts deserve more scrutiny and can serve a possible basis for localized in loco FCC-erentice complaints and action. Fuck em. Pass local laws and citizen utility boards that can fine, conscript, or confiscate local Comcast cables for legitimate complaints of substandard service or price gouging rates. Why are big market cities like Chicago paying the same revenue/line as other suburban locations that require more expensive lengths of cable? Governments need revenue. School Districts need revenue. I call my plan Finetastic!
And if I were Comcast, I'd be careful of causing your customers to be massively pissed off. Because in these days of government competition of importing all the "headline laws" from other jurisdictions one can, if New York does it, there will be a copycat effect all the way to Fresno, California.
And thus, I would also use the self professed Comcast FCC Warning that they are not subject to the FCC as legal basis for State and local regulation.
Triple Play is the way to attack Comcast's marketing. There's a lot of competition to Comcast's own VoIP offering. Comcast blows AT&T marketing spam away with their attempts to pad the monthly bill paid by consumers. We could easily cause a massive amount of revenue damage by getting all customers of Comcast to drop the Comcast VoIP and replace it with a competitor service, such as Vonage.
Comcast is going to be ever more dependent on the $25-$33 for this service in their marginal revenue. If you want to attack Comcast, in spite of their monopoly cable television and internet monopoly, this is what you focus on. That's more than enough to crush Comcast's throttling plans. So focus on spreading the word to get every you know who is stuck with Comcast to sign up to a competitor VoIP plan.
http://gigaom.com/2006/09/20/comcast-has-a-million-voip-customers/
I could see a successful strategy of generating a mass Comcast VoIP boycott costing them around a quarter of a billion dollars in yearly revenue. Also a class action lawsuit on the change of service fees might be doable.
Also keep pushing the FCC on ala carte cable channels. The quicker cable television channels are commoditized, the better. And ever channel at ala carte price better damn well add up *exactly* to the package prices. I'm sure both the FCC and FTC would be *very* interested to discover ala carte price gouging.
If there are no legal repercussions or consequences, financial or otherwise, for false or mistaken DMCA takedown notices, then file DMCA takedown notices against all the original content after making your parody. Serve iTunes with notice to remove the Village People as a sellable .mp3 file. I mean hell, if you don't have to check the actual content to discern whether the content is actually infringing, and just go by the titles, then those original titles might very well be infringing the copyrighted parodies. These companies cannot sell your parodies for profit without express permission or compensation. :P
Now you've got a fair War, and can start doing some real economic damage against these companies abusing copyright.
If legal messages are copyrighted, can't you then justly refuse to read them, and have them tossed as legally binding and/or compliant with Court notification standards?
Exactly. Musicians and actors did more than any other group to forge a defiance of authority attitude. They still try to do this rampantly even today. And when they complain about "piracy" it makes the artists images look w~e~a~k. Metallica becomes whiny New Kids on the Block. Rappers lose all their "stop snitching" anti-police street credibility. Were talking about pop marketing, and the music industry has lost tons of street credibility and artists are guilty by association.
This is also a huge reason why the music industry has no moral credibility with which to complain about piracy. They've been pushing a pirate attitude and a pirate image for decades. Hence, Fuck the RIAA. The consumers are now more bad ass than the artists. So sad, lol. And now even the likes of Snoop Doggy Dogg need to try to sing like Neo with offering like "Sensual Seduction". It's effen vodka marketing hilarious.
You are exactly right. It's about time artists are held accountable for their fair share of blame. They've been let off the hook, and allowed to skate because they complain how they are screwed by record company contracts. They never once complained about the insane length of term increases to copyright. And plenty of artists like to call their fans thieves. It's high time we call out the artists who are making money from 30, 40, and 50 year old material the public domain thieves they are. Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, et al are stealing culture from future generations of kids, making it more scarce and higher priced.
None of theses artists didn't rip off the artistic ideas of other artists either. Their claims of copyright, their claims of originality, their claims of art, are pure delusions of fantasy. Welcome to the internetz. Don't give these people money even if they are independent. Don't go to their concerts (if they cost money). Don't buy their cds. Don't buy their merchandise. Artists need to themselves start demanding an end to the copyright insanity. We need a better filter than just they are not an RIAA label. Perhaps a signature Declaration of Free Culture enumerating 21st century expectations of the use and compensation for ideas can be circulated through the musician community to put individual artists in the clear, and their material safe to purchase, if they sign the document. Said petition can then be used as counter RIAA propaganda and testimony for sane law changes, first and foremost a reduction in the length of the term of monopoly distribution grant to equal or less than the length of patents.
Society will be much better off in the long run if we starve and burn the food supply of musicians for 10-20 years.
Did any of the artists care about any of the consumers losing all of their public domain contemporary return benefit rights when copyright was extended from 14 years to life plus 50 years? Did they care in the slightest that artists making money from selling songs 30, 40, and 50 years old are *stealing* from the public? No. So no consumer should care if any artist gets 100% of his work stolen and can't make a single cent. It's called Justice.
B.) They are excessive.
C.) Therefore, unconstitutional.
It certainly does apply to Civil Trial when damages are a priori set by Federal Statute, juries are instructed, biased, and beholden to not awarding actual damages, which according to recent Supreme Court cases, are deemed excessive at more than three times the actual damage amount. So any penalty greater than $3 per infringed song is unconstitutional, let alone $150,000 fines for $1 (not even *proved*) actual damages.
I don't know about that anymore. You are starting to talk huge political downside if you start directly publicly advocating for the RIAA now (except perhaps in a few Hollywood districts). You have tons of pissed off students and tons of pissed off academic administrators who have let it be known they are very unhappy with the heavy handed RIAA techniques and threats to academic freedom. I'd say in at least 80% of political districts advocating for the RIAA would be akin to advocating for Big Tobacco. Judges don't like to be hoodwinked and humiliated either.
More and more this whole issue is threatening to blow up, and no doubt there will be massive political collateral damage if it does. Just ask the Republican Party how the Ron Paul supporters did with barely any organization and time in the political primary process. It will be a hell of a lot more targeted, organized, and effective the next time four years from now.
But let them buy all the unconstitutional laws they want. Those exact same laws can be confiscated and used against them (1 million or 10 million people can be copyright trolls for very little expense, and it could pay, just like it pays for patent trolls), and when the tide of public opinion turns, it will turn hard (they are a cast full of sleazy and greedy lawyers, executives, and overpaid artists with almost no redeeming sympathetic propaganda figures). Their propaganda campaigns arouse contempt. And an Anti-Copyright Abuse Political Action Committee might be able to raise Ron Paul amounts of money to run targeted negative ads against a list of the 20 worst bought Congressmen, and possibly defeat 50-75% of them. I could see such targeting swinging election results a good 5-10% in those districts, well enough to cause effective change. And it's an issue that can slice without regard to political party affiliation. You have a huge untapped younger voter base that is mobilizing, that would certainly go out and vote to defeat pro-RIAA candidates. And Senators up for re-election would be even easier State-wide targets.
The game is up, and everyone knows it. The RIAA is going to start sustaining a more and more egregious reputation even in sell out DC city, especially as legal abuse losses start mounting. Congressmen aren't politically stupid. Don't think they haven't noticed the rising up of student legal groups and independent academic institution mobilization. Don't think they didn't notice Comcast bend over just now on targeted throttling (even under an alleged anti-"piracy" justification).
And keep not buying or buying less music. Why should you care about any artists? Did any of those artists give the slightest damn when bribes stole away from you the contemporary limited bargain return of the advancement of arts into the public domain, even as you gave up your First Amendment free speech rights to copy and were forced to welfare subsidize their campaign of artificial monopoly scarcity greed and abuse through the resources of your government? They are all greedy fucks, wanting to milk you continuously for stuff that is 30 and 40 years old. Starve the bastards.