So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?
Yes, pretty much. Hardly anything is totally "irrefutable", but there is plenty of evidence which supports the link between warming and CO2, including the paleoclimate record, the observed timing, rate, and magnitude of the warming compared to the CO2 forcing (when other forcings are included too, of course), the stratospheric cooling fingerprint, the observed changes in the diurnal cycle, etc.
Al Gore's cartoons notwithstanding, C02 levels follow warming trends rather than precede them. So any linkage cannot be attributed to cause.
Furthermore, we have not seen any further warming since 2001. That's a 7 year pause in warming that cannot possibly be attributed to decreases in fossil fuel consumption.
So, no there is nothing even close to irrefutable much less insinuating a human-caused warming trend.
Personally, I find it absurd that anyone could put their faith in a global cooperative government solution to global warming. Governments are good for one thing - that is to break your leg, hand you a crutch and exclaim "See, if it weren't for us, you couldn't walk!"
If man really is the cause of warming, it won't be the governments that reverse the trend.
So, I believe he's accused of distributing a device for circumventing technological means for protecting copywritten works, which (rightly or wrongly) is illegal under the DMCA. Car mod chips don't do that.
Does it do anything else? How is he responsible for the way that somebody else might use the device?
To put the same logic into play regarding the auto chips, perhaps those manufacturers could be shut down because they make it possible for drivers to further exceed the speed limit.
Seems to me that the simplest thing to infringe upon regarding copyrights is the written word and yet we don't have a huge campaign to shut down Xerox and Cannon.
A copyright protects the author against others making a profit off of their work. And his work has to (according to the constitution anyway) advance the "usefull arts and sciences", Berne convention treaty not withstanding. Congress may have signed onto the Berne convention but they didn't offer a constitutional amendment in order to modify the copyright clause. The courts have ruled time and time again that copyrights should be limited to information not already in the public domain.
I personally don't think that software falls into the category of promoting the useful arts and sciences. Especially given the fact that it is transient in nature and a new version is generally released on a regular interval rendering the last version obsolute (for a myriad of reasons).
Screwing with the engine's algorhythms often increases the pollution the car emits. It definitely does an end-run around the regulatory boys at the EPA.
I don't consider the EPA as having any jurisdiction over any free citizen but be that as it may, there has been no call to outlaw the chips.
This whole thing just bothers me. How is it that aftermarket chip mods for cars is OK but chip mods for XBoxes or other types of computers isn't?
Seems to me that this is a matter of offering features that somebody else refuses to offer. Ford isn't going to put a chip that offers you more performance due to government meddling in auto manufacturing. But obviously the public demands these features and somebody is bridging the gap. How is this harming anyone? Isn't it actually expanding the market?
What do you expect from Ashcroft though? It wouldn't surprise me if this fellow is indicted on charges of "terrorism."
Dr. Bonabeau takes us from his childhood nightmares of carnivorous wasps to applying the theories of swarm intelligence to solving real problems in the business world."
Reminds me of Freud's practice of diagnosing the entire world as being posessed with the illness of which he suffered.
Perhaps Dr. Bonabeau's phobia will yield better results than the psychological fields have. One can hope.....
What we, the 'liberals', are saying is, 'making the entire Earth into a Turkish steam bath is part of the cost of using fossil fuels.' So maybe the fact that people would flock to a new fuel if it were cleaner, safer, and more efficient than gasoline is only of limited usefulness if nobody comes up with one, and therefore gasoline continues to be used.
And you're basing your opinion on "scientific evidence" that isn't nearly as conclusive as is asserted.
Part of the reason that nobody has come up with a good alternative is becuase the government is controlling production.
I'm not suggesting that the cheapest thing is always the best thing. I'm saying that forcing me to do something for the "good" of the environment is worse than allowing the market to operate without regulation.
In 1966, the rules may not have saved many lives. In 2003, the rules do.
Of course. That's why those terrorists were so unsuccessful in 2001....oh wait a minute...the rules about guns didn't save anyone.
And you cannot argue, you simply cannot argue, that a gun in a pressurised cabin at 35,000 feet is going to be of any use whatsoever saving the lives of people on board from a suicidal terrorist.
Then why is the government hiring more sky Marshalls?
Thank goodness the Cato institute isn't in control of airline safety then. There'd be suicide bombers by the hundreds buying tickets, waiting until they're 30,000 feet in the air, and then shooting the windows.
Of course. That is why that it was such a common occurence prior to 1965 when it was perfectly legal to carry a loaded sidearm with you onto the plane.
It's stupid to put sneer quotes around the term "scientist" when referring to government scientists.
No it isn't. Scientists who work for the government are going to present "findings" that will generate them more grant money. There are a plethora of AIDS researchers out there today that won't even consider that HIV is a harmless retrovirus because AIDS research has become politicized.
Government represents the will of the people (one man, one vote).
Depends on the government. "One man one vote" is democracy and democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner.
Government is force. I have no doubt that government can solve some problems but they can't solve every problem because the solution to every problem cannot possibly be the use of force. If it were there would be no drug abuse, no child abuse and no poverty.
I have almost zero confidence that any government will be able to fix global warming, but I have even less confidence that unregulated corporations would do so. There's just no incentive to do so.
And I disagree. You are correct that "corporations" don't have an incentive to fix the atmosphere but they do have an incentive to make money. If some genius comes up with an alternative fuel that is cheaper than oil to produce it will be instantly successful.
The only thing that can prevent this from occurring is government regulation. It was incentives by way of tax breaks that stagnated the solar industry. These incentives allowed them to drag down R&D in favor of short term gains (why make better cells when your customers are being subsidized to buy your inferior, expensive products?).
I understand where you're coming from but if you think it through any use of force is to make sure that the population consumes products that are "good for the environment" because we don't trust them to do it on their own.
London will be like Naples. Mediterranean temperatures will be the norm from Brighton to Bristol. Freak weather events will dominate the news as tornadoes and hurricanes crash across the country.
In the 70's "scientists" predicted a new ice age.
We don't know for sure what the climate will do but we do know that we are exiting an ice age so common sense would suggest that temperatures get warmer when this occurs.
To say that temperatures are getting warmer due to human intervention is simply conjecture.
The worst thing is to monopolize entire industries by allowing the government and their "scientists" to create the standards for any improvements upon fuels, energy sources etc.
This is like allowing Microsoft to set the standards for the entire computer industry.
People do care about becoming self-sufficient and weaning themselves off of oil but if you allow the government to tell us how this is going to be accomplished you can bet that somebody who is friends with some Senator or Parlimentary leader will get rich and those with truly good ideas will be prevented from bringing their ideas to market.
If the airline industry had been allowed to be completely responsible for its own security, you can bet that at least one airline would be letting you carry your loaded sidearm with you. That airline would more than likely not have suffered on 9/11 (boxcutters do beat seat cushions as offensive weapons) and perhaps garnered a loyal following among law abiding gun owners.
Government is about controlling the market however and so good ideas will always be shoved aside to accomodate those who have political influence. In the wake of 9/11 government decided that the best way to secure airline travel was to ban plastic knives and subject your grandma to an anal probe. If you have any confidence that they can solve global warming then you probably haven't looked into the various problems they've attempted to solve and how their "solutions" have worked out.
It would be best to look at the constitution and see if we haven't strayed from the original intent. The purpose is stated for patents and copyrights that they be allowed in order to promote "the progress of science and useful arts."
In their infinite wisdom, the courts and legislators have taken to protecting even newspaper articles(!!).
The judges back in the 1800's would scoff at the notion and you can open any newspaper and see how well it has served them.
The remarks of Mr. Justice Thompson in the Circuit Court in Clayton v. Stone & Hall (2 Paine, 392), in which copyright was claimed in a daily price-current, are opposite and instructive. He says: 'In determining the true construction to be given to the act of Congress, it is proper to look at the Constitution of the United States, to aid us in ascertaining the nature of the property intended to be protected. 'Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.' The act in question was passed in execution of the power here given, and the object, therefore, was the promotion of science; and it would certainly be a pretty extraordinary view of the sciences to consider a daily or weekly publication of the state of the market as falling within any class of them. They are of a more fixed, permanent, and durable character.
The term 'science' cannot, with any propriety, by applied to a work of so fluctuating and fugitive a form as that of a newspaper or price-current, the subject-matter of which is daily changing, and is of mere temporary use.'
BAKER v. SELDEN, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)
That view stands our current view on its ear but I find it hard to justify a claim that software is truly promoting the usefull arts and sciences.
Maybe we need to get a little more stingy with our patents and copyrights and see if it doesn't make a difference.
You only read what you wanted to. The article explicitly states, that piracy is in fact destroying musicians.
And why is it that you believe this one article is the absolute truth regarding China's music industry?
The piece seems to me to be an RIAA disinformation piece which is designed to keep the status quo in America (to the benefit of the RIAA).
Since very few of us actually speak fluent Chinese, for all we know, the author could have made up the quotes or mis-translated them in order to favor the RIAA view that the music industry is being "ruined" by all of the downloading (priacy) going on.
Most of the bigger names like Madonna and Van Halen get about 35 cents per CD from the record companies. The less well-known acts get even less.
I don't begrudge anyone making a profit but the government makes it virtually impossible to compete with Warner Brothers or Geffen unless you have a small fortune because access to radio is legislated to favor record companies.
The airwaves are closed to the independant artists and I think that downloads are reflective of the fact that radio stations won't play the music that folks want to hear on a regular basis.
Something raw but honest is way better than a "polished" whore/hottie who can sing.
I'd like to hear good musicians on the records for a change. Seems as if the trend in rock is to sign acts that can't play live and don't ever experiment musically.
I can't figure out if this is because the music programs in schools have been so decimated (and thus folks who have a musical background are few and far between and the rest just don't care that the musicians suck) or if it is just a function of formulaic industry habits and for the labels, shitty musicians are "in" right now.
You do what the e-mail says and get caught. You try to say your boss told you to do it, but because the e-mail erased it's self, and you couldn't print it out. So basically you're cought red-handed, and there is nothing but hearsay to prove that you're boss made you do it. You go down for what happened, your boss is OK.
Alternate reality:
You actually have integrity and aren't a public-schooled moron who will follow any order no mater how heinous. So...the email deletes itself and the boss, shortly after making bail, calls you at home and asks you why you didn't follow his instructions to which you reply...
"What instructions? I never got any email from you..."
A company cannot violate your free speech rights.
No offense, but his is nonsense. A company can certainly violate your free speech rights and while it is perhaps not specifically the case in this instance, there are several legal cases which have determined that the rights of individuals have been infringed upon by private corporations.
Most importantly the issue for private individuals revolves around prior notice in a contractual situation.
For instance, your employer cannot prevent you from praying since this would violate your right to practice your religion. They cannot fire you for holding any particular opinion either.
One such example of the courts opinion on a corporation infringing upon the public rights...
No individual or corporation can acquire any portion of a public street, for exclusive private use, to the exclusion of the public. Hibbard S. B. & Co. v. Chicago, 40 L.R.A. 621, 173 Ill. 91, 50 N. E. 256. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 66.)
Clearly their are conditions where a corporation or individual can violate your rights.
If your proposition were in fact true, then a corporation could not ever commit a crime could it? After all a crime is the violation of an individual's rights by another individual or entity.
All well and good. I've seen alot of comments about how terrific Lego and other building blocks are but I haven't seen anyone talk much about other perhaps more useful things kids can do with their time - rather than try and build mechanical or organic simulations where the starting point is a set of geometrically correct yet naturally abhorrant shapes(there are alot of comments here so it could simply be because I haven't read them all).
I have a three year-old as well.
But my view can be summed up as "legos shmegos."
Show me a kid that can walk into a piece of open land, pick up a few items and build a fire without a match and I'll be impressed. It can be done. The materials to build a bow drill can be found and constructed without the use of any tools.
Or how about a kid who can identify all of the edible and poisonous plants in his part of the world?
At one time, these were skills of value. Because they are not, and because things like legos and lincoln logs are considered "educational", the "shoppers" will be rendered completely helpless in the event of a major catastrophe.
And those who chose to forego legos and instead walked outside and looked around, will then simply and naturally walk into the woods and survive comfortably while the "technologically advanced" people will start killing each other to obtain resources because their great technological systems will have failed them.
Yes I know what you meant and sorry for the bad choice of words. The video editor in this case has multiple camera feeds. He doesn't get to pause or rewind the feed.
He simply changes the views and consolodates those feeds into a broadcast or into tape.
Or, say in the instance of a sports event, he stores feeds and plays them back later such as in an instant replay situation.
Real time video editing rigs may have been expensive but that does not stop them being prior art.
Yes it does. Real time video editing rigs are based on the media being attached to the editing console.
The invention here is capturing broadcast signals and allowing for a buffering of the signal such that the user can pause and resume without ever changing the input signal. If there is anything that could be compared as prior art it would be the laser printer which receives a broadcast, buffers the signal and sends the output to the page. The laser printer has controls which allows the user to pause printing, stop printing and even change the number of copies.
A video editor has the luxury of a pre-recorded tape(s) at his disposal. If he were to attempt to edit a live broadcast, his equipment couldn't do it. In fact Tivo can't do it either. The two functions are disparate and unique.
I suppose that if one were to agree that the laser printer is closer in raw functionality and design, then you would have to fault the patent examiner for not understanding technology to search patents in unrelated fields.
On the other hand there is an obvious difference in the medium here and that may justify a patent.
It would be easy to poo-poo the patentability of pausing live TV based on prior art (The VCR). But obviously the Patent examiner was convinced.
On one hand, you could say that this idea was obvious and that the technology simply had to catch up with the idea such that it could be executed.
The patent application process is a slow one. The average time for a patent to be granted is roughly 3 years.
The late Jerome Lemelson Filed one patent that took the patent office 39 years to grant.
The filers here had to at least think of this idea and file the patent on or before 1989. I haven't read the patent but I would bet it describes how this could be accomplished and before the enabling technology was yet developed.
Lemelson's "machine vision" patent was first filed in 1950. If similar things accomplished via different media or technology is the basis of a rejection [that Tivo or other like technologies are "new], then one would be hard pressed to say that barcode and photocopying technology was new in 1950, given that the Gutenberg press was invented in 1445 and the camera in 1826.
Does this mean then that photocopiers, because they perform the basic function that a camera and printing press covers, were not really a new idea?
Personally I don't think so. I do wonder though, when did the patent holders first contact TIVO and what was TIVO's response? That'd be an interesting conversation on which to eavesdrop.
Also interesting would be what the patent examiner cited as prior art if any against the fellows in question and the response to those challenges.
As a long-time poster at Free Republic, I'd like to clear some things up.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success. For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good. Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's. FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR)
Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots.
That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic. The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR. He would post articles with obsenities in the title, personal information about other posters and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all. He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR. He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game. And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice. If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent. Eschoir has claimed in response to the/. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease. I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper. The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
There was a frivilous lawsuit, one which consumed an estimated $75,000 in legal fees from Free Republic
Frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court. This was no frivolous lawsuit.
Eschoir had registered more than 50 seperate screen names which he used to post profanity, insults and personal information about Free Republic posters and the owner of the site.
He also posted that he had peeked in the windows of a users living room. Her claim is that he described it to a T.
Eschoir, as he is known on FR and elsewhere, propogated information about various screen name/password combinations to other ex-members in an effort to perpetually harrass the site.
Any claim by TCA that he would have gladly stopped this 2-year campaign of harrasmant, by the simple mailing of a cease and desist letter should result in a calamity of laughter by those who have witnessed his assault.
He's a petulant child. His goal was to get attention for himself. He got it. In some sick way, I'm sure he truly believes he prevailed.
Slashdot Mirror
So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?
Yes, pretty much. Hardly anything is totally "irrefutable", but there is plenty of evidence which supports the link between warming and CO2, including the paleoclimate record, the observed timing, rate, and magnitude of the warming compared to the CO2 forcing (when other forcings are included too, of course), the stratospheric cooling fingerprint, the observed changes in the diurnal cycle, etc.
Al Gore's cartoons notwithstanding, C02 levels follow warming trends rather than precede them. So any linkage cannot be attributed to cause.
Furthermore, we have not seen any further warming since 2001. That's a 7 year pause in warming that cannot possibly be attributed to decreases in fossil fuel consumption.
So, no there is nothing even close to irrefutable much less insinuating a human-caused warming trend.
Personally, I find it absurd that anyone could put their faith in a global cooperative government solution to global warming. Governments are good for one thing - that is to break your leg, hand you a crutch and exclaim "See, if it weren't for us, you couldn't walk!"
If man really is the cause of warming, it won't be the governments that reverse the trend.
So, I believe he's accused of distributing a device for circumventing technological means for protecting copywritten works, which (rightly or wrongly) is illegal under the DMCA. Car mod chips don't do that.
Does it do anything else? How is he responsible for the way that somebody else might use the device?
To put the same logic into play regarding the auto chips, perhaps those manufacturers could be shut down because they make it possible for drivers to further exceed the speed limit.
Seems to me that the simplest thing to infringe upon regarding copyrights is the written word and yet we don't have a huge campaign to shut down Xerox and Cannon.
A copyright protects the author against others making a profit off of their work. And his work has to (according to the constitution anyway) advance the "usefull arts and sciences", Berne convention treaty not withstanding. Congress may have signed onto the Berne convention but they didn't offer a constitutional amendment in order to modify the copyright clause. The courts have ruled time and time again that copyrights should be limited to information not already in the public domain.
I personally don't think that software falls into the category of promoting the useful arts and sciences. Especially given the fact that it is transient in nature and a new version is generally released on a regular interval rendering the last version obsolute (for a myriad of reasons).
Screwing with the engine's algorhythms often increases the pollution the car emits. It definitely does an end-run around the regulatory boys at the EPA.
I don't consider the EPA as having any jurisdiction over any free citizen but be that as it may, there has been no call to outlaw the chips.
It always changes their mind.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it takes a judge to change their minds.
But you never know until you assert your rights.
Not if it violates the supreme law of the land it isn't.
This whole thing just bothers me. How is it that aftermarket chip mods for cars is OK but chip mods for XBoxes or other types of computers isn't?
Seems to me that this is a matter of offering features that somebody else refuses to offer. Ford isn't going to put a chip that offers you more performance due to government meddling in auto manufacturing. But obviously the public demands these features and somebody is bridging the gap. How is this harming anyone? Isn't it actually expanding the market?
What do you expect from Ashcroft though? It wouldn't surprise me if this fellow is indicted on charges of "terrorism."
Dr. Bonabeau takes us from his childhood nightmares of carnivorous wasps to applying the theories of swarm intelligence to solving real problems in the business world."
Reminds me of Freud's practice of diagnosing the entire world as being posessed with the illness of which he suffered.
Perhaps Dr. Bonabeau's phobia will yield better results than the psychological fields have. One can hope.....
What we, the 'liberals', are saying is, 'making the entire Earth into a Turkish steam bath is part of the cost of using fossil fuels.' So maybe the fact that people would flock to a new fuel if it were cleaner, safer, and more efficient than gasoline is only of limited usefulness if nobody comes up with one, and therefore gasoline continues to be used.
And you're basing your opinion on "scientific evidence" that isn't nearly as conclusive as is asserted.
Part of the reason that nobody has come up with a good alternative is becuase the government is controlling production.
I'm not suggesting that the cheapest thing is always the best thing. I'm saying that forcing me to do something for the "good" of the environment is worse than allowing the market to operate without regulation.
In 1966, the rules may not have saved many lives. In 2003, the rules do.
Of course. That's why those terrorists were so unsuccessful in 2001....oh wait a minute...the rules about guns didn't save anyone.
And you cannot argue, you simply cannot argue, that a gun in a pressurised cabin at 35,000 feet is going to be of any use whatsoever saving the lives of people on board from a suicidal terrorist.
Then why is the government hiring more sky Marshalls?
Thank goodness the Cato institute isn't in control of airline safety then. There'd be suicide bombers by the hundreds buying tickets, waiting until they're 30,000 feet in the air, and then shooting the windows.
Of course. That is why that it was such a common occurence prior to 1965 when it was perfectly legal to carry a loaded sidearm with you onto the plane.
It's stupid to put sneer quotes around the term "scientist" when referring to government scientists.
No it isn't. Scientists who work for the government are going to present "findings" that will generate them more grant money.
There are a plethora of AIDS researchers out there today that won't even consider that HIV is a harmless retrovirus because AIDS research has become politicized.
Government represents the will of the people (one man, one vote).
Depends on the government. "One man one vote" is democracy and democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner.
Government is force. I have no doubt that government can solve some problems but they can't solve every problem because the solution to every problem cannot possibly be the use of force. If it were there would be no drug abuse, no child abuse and no poverty.
I have almost zero confidence that any government will be able to fix global warming, but I have even less confidence that unregulated corporations would do so. There's just no incentive to do so.
And I disagree. You are correct that "corporations" don't have an incentive to fix the atmosphere but they do have an incentive to make money. If some genius comes up with an alternative fuel that is cheaper than oil to produce it will be instantly successful.
The only thing that can prevent this from occurring is government regulation. It was incentives by way of tax breaks that stagnated the solar industry. These incentives allowed them to drag down R&D in favor of short term gains (why make better cells when your customers are being subsidized to buy your inferior, expensive products?).
I understand where you're coming from but if you think it through any use of force is to make sure that the population consumes products that are "good for the environment" because we don't trust them to do it on their own.
In the 70's "scientists" predicted a new ice age.
We don't know for sure what the climate will do but we do know that we are exiting an ice age so common sense would suggest that temperatures get warmer when this occurs.
To say that temperatures are getting warmer due to human intervention is simply conjecture.
The worst thing is to monopolize entire industries by allowing the government and their "scientists" to create the standards for any improvements upon fuels, energy sources etc.
This is like allowing Microsoft to set the standards for the entire computer industry.
People do care about becoming self-sufficient and weaning themselves off of oil but if you allow the government to tell us how this is going to be accomplished you can bet that somebody who is friends with some Senator or Parlimentary leader will get rich and those with truly good ideas will be prevented from bringing their ideas to market.
If the airline industry had been allowed to be completely responsible for its own security, you can bet that at least one airline would be letting you carry your loaded sidearm with you. That airline would more than likely not have suffered on 9/11 (boxcutters do beat seat cushions as offensive weapons) and perhaps garnered a loyal following among law abiding gun owners.
Government is about controlling the market however and so good ideas will always be shoved aside to accomodate those who have political influence. In the wake of 9/11 government decided that the best way to secure airline travel was to ban plastic knives and subject your grandma to an anal probe. If you have any confidence that they can solve global warming then you probably haven't looked into the various problems they've attempted to solve and how their "solutions" have worked out.
And why is it that you believe this one article is the absolute truth regarding China's music industry?
The piece seems to me to be an RIAA disinformation piece which is designed to keep the status quo in America (to the benefit of the RIAA).
Since very few of us actually speak fluent Chinese, for all we know, the author could have made up the quotes or mis-translated them in order to favor the RIAA view that the music industry is being "ruined" by all of the downloading (priacy) going on.
Most of the bigger names like Madonna and Van Halen get about 35 cents per CD from the record companies. The less well-known acts get even less.
I don't begrudge anyone making a profit but the government makes it virtually impossible to compete with Warner Brothers or Geffen unless you have a small fortune because access to radio is legislated to favor record companies.
The airwaves are closed to the independant artists and I think that downloads are reflective of the fact that radio stations won't play the music that folks want to hear on a regular basis.
I'd like to hear good musicians on the records for a change. Seems as if the trend in rock is to sign acts that can't play live and don't ever experiment musically.
I can't figure out if this is because the music programs in schools have been so decimated (and thus folks who have a musical background are few and far between and the rest just don't care that the musicians suck) or if it is just a function of formulaic industry habits and for the labels, shitty musicians are "in" right now.
Alternate reality:
You actually have integrity and aren't a public-schooled moron who will follow any order no mater how heinous. So...the email deletes itself and the boss, shortly after making bail, calls you at home and asks you why you didn't follow his instructions to which you reply... "What instructions? I never got any email from you..."
I have a three year-old as well.
But my view can be summed up as "legos shmegos."
Show me a kid that can walk into a piece of open land, pick up a few items and build a fire without a match and I'll be impressed. It can be done. The materials to build a bow drill can be found and constructed without the use of any tools.
Or how about a kid who can identify all of the edible and poisonous plants in his part of the world?
At one time, these were skills of value. Because they are not, and because things like legos and lincoln logs are considered "educational", the "shoppers" will be rendered completely helpless in the event of a major catastrophe.
And those who chose to forego legos and instead walked outside and looked around, will then simply and naturally walk into the woods and survive comfortably while the "technologically advanced" people will start killing each other to obtain resources because their great technological systems will have failed them.
Yes I know what you meant and sorry for the bad choice of words. The video editor in this case has multiple camera feeds. He doesn't get to pause or rewind the feed.
He simply changes the views and consolodates those feeds into a broadcast or into tape.
Or, say in the instance of a sports event, he stores feeds and plays them back later such as in an instant replay situation.
Yes it does. Real time video editing rigs are based on the media being attached to the editing console.
The invention here is capturing broadcast signals and allowing for a buffering of the signal such that the user can pause and resume without ever changing the input signal. If there is anything that could be compared as prior art it would be the laser printer which receives a broadcast, buffers the signal and sends the output to the page. The laser printer has controls which allows the user to pause printing, stop printing and even change the number of copies.
A video editor has the luxury of a pre-recorded tape(s) at his disposal. If he were to attempt to edit a live broadcast, his equipment couldn't do it. In fact Tivo can't do it either. The two functions are disparate and unique.
I suppose that if one were to agree that the laser printer is closer in raw functionality and design, then you would have to fault the patent examiner for not understanding technology to search patents in unrelated fields.
On the other hand there is an obvious difference in the medium here and that may justify a patent.
The patent application process is a slow one. The average time for a patent to be granted is roughly 3 years. The late Jerome Lemelson Filed one patent that took the patent office 39 years to grant.
The filers here had to at least think of this idea and file the patent on or before 1989. I haven't read the patent but I would bet it describes how this could be accomplished and before the enabling technology was yet developed. Lemelson's "machine vision" patent was first filed in 1950. If similar things accomplished via different media or technology is the basis of a rejection [that Tivo or other like technologies are "new], then one would be hard pressed to say that barcode and photocopying technology was new in 1950, given that the Gutenberg press was invented in 1445 and the camera in 1826.
Does this mean then that photocopiers, because they perform the basic function that a camera and printing press covers, were not really a new idea?
Personally I don't think so. I do wonder though, when did the patent holders first contact TIVO and what was TIVO's response? That'd be an interesting conversation on which to eavesdrop.
Also interesting would be what the patent examiner cited as prior art if any against the fellows in question and the response to those challenges.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success. For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good. Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's. FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR)
Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots.
That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic. The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR. He would post articles with obsenities in the title, personal information about other posters and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all. He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR. He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game. And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice. If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent. Eschoir has claimed in response to the /. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease. I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper. The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
Rick Fisk aka Demidog
Live by the sword, die by the swword. Lucianne's customers breathed a deep sigh of relief when she gave you the old BOP.
Frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court. This was no frivolous lawsuit.
Eschoir had registered more than 50 seperate screen names which he used to post profanity, insults and personal information about Free Republic posters and the owner of the site.
He also posted that he had peeked in the windows of a users living room. Her claim is that he described it to a T.
Eschoir, as he is known on FR and elsewhere, propogated information about various screen name/password combinations to other ex-members in an effort to perpetually harrass the site.
Any claim by TCA that he would have gladly stopped this 2-year campaign of harrasmant, by the simple mailing of a cease and desist letter should result in a calamity of laughter by those who have witnessed his assault.
He's a petulant child. His goal was to get attention for himself. He got it. In some sick way, I'm sure he truly believes he prevailed.
The estimated cost of this lawsuit keeps growing. Let's call it a million and really make it impressive!