Ultimately, lawyers and courts (when used for stuff like this) are overhead costs that are to be minimized. Don't get me wrong: the individual companies can come out better, but the customer always loses. All those lawyers are paid by the customers.
Europe has a clear political bias too (we're left wing socialist surrender monkeys), and we're quite happy about that. So, please America, leave our wikipedia alone. Thanks.
If I think that wikipedia is politically neutral, then this investigation will show it has a bias for the Democrats. If wikipedia is neutral between Democrat and Republican views, then I will think it has a strong right wing bias.
The problem with this kind of reserach is that it might either undermine Wikipedia as a source in general (when finally the world seems to agree that the qualiy of wikipedia is just as good as any encyclopedia), or worse: it leads to changes in the contents to neutralize the supposed bias. This investigation has no benefits for wikipedia, or for free information.
No, you don't digress at all. You describe a perfect example of the results of a risk assessment, and also why the results of modern governmental risk assessments are different. An investment is all about risks.
The trip Columbus took was ultimately to find a cheaper way to India. The fact that he found a new world was merely a coincidence, and actually meant a failure of the original mission. The investors that financed Columbus' trip were in it to make more money.
In the old days, government attitudes had swung perhaps to the other side: they completely ignored risks and were quite reckless at times. Good for exploration, bad for the health of people.
It might be interesting to add that a large portion of the explorations was (co-)funded by companies. The East India Company (both the Dutch and the English one) were companies, and were not owned by the crown or government.
I am quite happy with the commercialization of space flight. I've always thought that the national space agencies were on the wrong path for decades. They always seem to aim for increased security and safety. I think spaceflight has gone over the top: the costs of increased safety are just not worth it. Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment: certain risks are simply acceptable. This attitude is likely to reduce costs, which is what we need.
Obviously, NASA or ESA can still ask SpaceX to launch a couple of thousand tons of material into orbit, to assemble a Mars rocket and lander in orbit.:-)
When launching from Earth becomes easy, the next step can be considered.
Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> they start adding more and more protections that cost tons of money (not to mention it makes the paying customer really frustrated) -> stuff is too expensive...
If you really want to make the circle round, it should go like this: Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> more and more anti-piracy lawsuits -> people start to pirate anti-piracy lawsuits
The real business case is no longer the software. As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues. If they cannot find a copyright issue, they'll go bankrupt. If they find more copyright issues than last year (and win a few lawsuits), they'll make profit.
I guess that soon enough, we cannot change the copyright laws anymore, because the copyright-chasers would lose their revenues.
How is ingesting caffeine and food different than adding hardware to our brain?
It isn't. And that's why most countries have institutes where doctors determine what's safe and what's not and also what's legal and what's not. Some drugs alter your mind so much that we think we'd better make them illegal. And some things are innocent enough, or even considered a stimulant, so we allow them.
I would hope that "hardware for our brain" would be treated with the same medical methods as any medicine, food product or beverage.
Companies use advertisements. That's commercial propaganda.
If you don't believe those documentaries, then at least treat the marketing division of Monsanto in a similar way as you treat those documentaries: As a subjective source of information.
You need more than a high IQ to be considered intelligent. If you only care about yourself and nothing else, you are not intelligent. In fact, you deserve a slap in the face from your mother if you are like that... because I am sure she never taught you to be like that.
You suggest that Monsanto is only "potentially malevolent"? They make a business of killing small farm businesses. Their legal department is larger than their scientific department. They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds. What makes you still doubt?
Against the law? If anything it should be the law. Why should the military spend its time and money on projects which aren't relevant to recruitment or combat/training?
Because it's not "military money". It's "tax payer's money".
From a purely military perspective, you want severe propaganda, and censorship. You want information to be restricted. To the people at home, you give positive information about the military. And to those abroad (potential enemies), you show some muscle. Some Shock and Awe. That will give the best results from a purely military perspective.
However, the military still listens to the government (doesn't it?). And the government is interested in an open and free society (isn't it?). So, from that perspective, it would be necessary to have some opposition (right?). So, why not give that opposition some financial backing too?
Even though it's a pure flame against Monsanto, I would mod this up if I had any points.
You're right. Monsanto make life itself a business, and they do not seem to care at all how they make a profit. Where Google's motto is "Don't be evil", it seems Monsanto has the opposite motto: "Be evil". Kill small business. Own life. Then extort it for profit. If you own the food market, you own the world.
I cannot understand why anyone with a functioning brain would look for a job at Monsanto.
Monsanto haven't won this one yet. The French people can be a bunch of hippy activists. I wouldn't be surprised if (1) the French government makes companies put a big sticker on such corn products, and then (2) nobody buys it.
What the EU is essentially saying is that Google is breaking the law. They can pay the fine, or battle it out in court (and risk a higher fine perhaps). The EU has many tools at its disposal. A fine would be step 1. But if Google would be so stupid to consistently break the law, or not pay the fine, then they might seize their European assets or otherwise obstruct their business inside the EU. A total block might be the final option.
Google is not stupid, they won't let it come that far. They don't want to lose 500 million users.
1. The show is addictive. That's why I can't wait a whole week. I'll watch it as soon as it's available anywhere 2. It might be broadcast when I am not available (I don't know actually) 3. Downloading / streaming a movie/series is not against the law where I live.
Because they have to do science, not fight copyright problems. Also, they just want their articles to be peer reviewed, not to be put with all the internet crackpots.
Why can't a government protect its scientists? After all, scientists are often using subsidies/grants to do their research, so they're basically giving tax money to publishers.
70 Watts of thermal, available at 37 C, and at an ambient temperature of 20 C (room temperature) would give you a whopping 5 W of electric, assuming you achieve maximum Carnot efficiency (which you won't).
100% efficient heat to electricity conversion has a huge potential. In power stations... but not really in clothing.
We're terrible at powering anything. We have poor motivation, work horrible hours and worst of all: we have freedom of choice. I doubt we're gonna make ourselves tired just to power our phone, when your phone adapter doesn't even show up on your electricity bill, because it's so insignificant.
It's sad that they always aim at the lowest energy consumer in my household: my puny 1 W phone, instead of my 1000 W laundry machine, my 150 W fridge, my 300 W computer, or the lights in the house, which add up to at least 250 W (yes, I use energy saving lights).
One wind turbine would probably be the equivalent of all of London jumping around on these shoes.
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, lawyers and courts (when used for stuff like this) are overhead costs that are to be minimized. Don't get me wrong: the individual companies can come out better, but the customer always loses. All those lawyers are paid by the customers.
And I think we'd be better off without them.
Still, all the hardware is now in place. Software can be changed, and the system can be opened up to become real internet.
And some travel information might actually be useful, even if you cannot get to your facebook.
Europe has a clear political bias too (we're left wing socialist surrender monkeys), and we're quite happy about that. So, please America, leave our wikipedia alone. Thanks.
If I think that wikipedia is politically neutral, then this investigation will show it has a bias for the Democrats.
If wikipedia is neutral between Democrat and Republican views, then I will think it has a strong right wing bias.
The problem with this kind of reserach is that it might either undermine Wikipedia as a source in general (when finally the world seems to agree that the qualiy of wikipedia is just as good as any encyclopedia), or worse: it leads to changes in the contents to neutralize the supposed bias. This investigation has no benefits for wikipedia, or for free information.
No, you don't digress at all. You describe a perfect example of the results of a risk assessment, and also why the results of modern governmental risk assessments are different. An investment is all about risks.
The trip Columbus took was ultimately to find a cheaper way to India. The fact that he found a new world was merely a coincidence, and actually meant a failure of the original mission. The investors that financed Columbus' trip were in it to make more money.
In the old days, government attitudes had swung perhaps to the other side: they completely ignored risks and were quite reckless at times. Good for exploration, bad for the health of people.
It might be interesting to add that a large portion of the explorations was (co-)funded by companies. The East India Company (both the Dutch and the English one) were companies, and were not owned by the crown or government.
I am quite happy with the commercialization of space flight. I've always thought that the national space agencies were on the wrong path for decades. They always seem to aim for increased security and safety. I think spaceflight has gone over the top: the costs of increased safety are just not worth it. Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment: certain risks are simply acceptable. This attitude is likely to reduce costs, which is what we need.
Obviously, NASA or ESA can still ask SpaceX to launch a couple of thousand tons of material into orbit, to assemble a Mars rocket and lander in orbit. :-)
When launching from Earth becomes easy, the next step can be considered.
If the EU follows the Dutch model (the Dutch just got their own net neutrality), then... Yes. You're right.
Still, it's a step in the right direction. Could be worse. Far worse.
Well at least it keeps the circle round...
Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> they start adding more and more protections that cost tons of money (not to mention it makes the paying customer really frustrated) -> stuff is too expensive...
If you really want to make the circle round, it should go like this:
Stuff is too expensive so people pirate it -> more and more anti-piracy lawsuits -> people start to pirate anti-piracy lawsuits
[/joke]
The real business case is no longer the software. As the article says, there are now dedicated companies who chase copyright issues. If they cannot find a copyright issue, they'll go bankrupt. If they find more copyright issues than last year (and win a few lawsuits), they'll make profit.
I guess that soon enough, we cannot change the copyright laws anymore, because the copyright-chasers would lose their revenues.
How is ingesting caffeine and food different than adding hardware to our brain?
It isn't.
And that's why most countries have institutes where doctors determine what's safe and what's not and also what's legal and what's not. Some drugs alter your mind so much that we think we'd better make them illegal. And some things are innocent enough, or even considered a stimulant, so we allow them.
I would hope that "hardware for our brain" would be treated with the same medical methods as any medicine, food product or beverage.
Companies use advertisements. That's commercial propaganda.
If you don't believe those documentaries, then at least treat the marketing division of Monsanto in a similar way as you treat those documentaries: As a subjective source of information.
You need more than a high IQ to be considered intelligent. If you only care about yourself and nothing else, you are not intelligent.
In fact, you deserve a slap in the face from your mother if you are like that... because I am sure she never taught you to be like that.
Stupid lawmakers don't understand the difference between anonymous individuals online, and an organized bunch of hackers.
It's bye bye World of Warcraft, and hello text-based mud!
[...]a potentially malevolent vendor,[...]
You suggest that Monsanto is only "potentially malevolent"? They make a business of killing small farm businesses. Their legal department is larger than their scientific department. They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds. What makes you still doubt?
Against the law? If anything it should be the law. Why should the military spend its time and money on projects which aren't relevant to recruitment or combat/training?
Because it's not "military money". It's "tax payer's money".
From a purely military perspective, you want severe propaganda, and censorship. You want information to be restricted. To the people at home, you give positive information about the military. And to those abroad (potential enemies), you show some muscle. Some Shock and Awe. That will give the best results from a purely military perspective.
However, the military still listens to the government (doesn't it?). And the government is interested in an open and free society (isn't it?). So, from that perspective, it would be necessary to have some opposition (right?). So, why not give that opposition some financial backing too?
Even though it's a pure flame against Monsanto, I would mod this up if I had any points.
You're right. Monsanto make life itself a business, and they do not seem to care at all how they make a profit. Where Google's motto is "Don't be evil", it seems Monsanto has the opposite motto: "Be evil". Kill small business. Own life. Then extort it for profit. If you own the food market, you own the world.
I cannot understand why anyone with a functioning brain would look for a job at Monsanto.
Monsanto haven't won this one yet. The French people can be a bunch of hippy activists. I wouldn't be surprised if (1) the French government makes companies put a big sticker on such corn products, and then (2) nobody buys it.
Google might be big, but it is not above the law.
What the EU is essentially saying is that Google is breaking the law. They can pay the fine, or battle it out in court (and risk a higher fine perhaps). The EU has many tools at its disposal. A fine would be step 1. But if Google would be so stupid to consistently break the law, or not pay the fine, then they might seize their European assets or otherwise obstruct their business inside the EU. A total block might be the final option.
Google is not stupid, they won't let it come that far. They don't want to lose 500 million users.
1. The show is addictive. That's why I can't wait a whole week. I'll watch it as soon as it's available anywhere
2. It might be broadcast when I am not available (I don't know actually)
3. Downloading / streaming a movie/series is not against the law where I live.
Because they have to do science, not fight copyright problems. Also, they just want their articles to be peer reviewed, not to be put with all the internet crackpots.
Why can't a government protect its scientists? After all, scientists are often using subsidies/grants to do their research, so they're basically giving tax money to publishers.
What is your supporting evidence that the rest of the world is living in peace? Syria? Libya? North Korea? Iran? Or some combination of all of them?
There are other countries too. Cherrypicking the 4 unsafest countries is not going to convince me that the world is at war.
Anyway, I am not buying the latest scaremongering story that demands we spend more on defense.
70 Watts of thermal, available at 37 C, and at an ambient temperature of 20 C (room temperature) would give you a whopping 5 W of electric, assuming you achieve maximum Carnot efficiency (which you won't).
100% efficient heat to electricity conversion has a huge potential. In power stations... but not really in clothing.
We're terrible at powering anything. We have poor motivation, work horrible hours and worst of all: we have freedom of choice.
I doubt we're gonna make ourselves tired just to power our phone, when your phone adapter doesn't even show up on your electricity bill, because it's so insignificant.
It's sad that they always aim at the lowest energy consumer in my household: my puny 1 W phone, instead of my 1000 W laundry machine, my 150 W fridge, my 300 W computer, or the lights in the house, which add up to at least 250 W (yes, I use energy saving lights).
One wind turbine would probably be the equivalent of all of London jumping around on these shoes.
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Aren't students those people you get when real people are too expensive, or unwilling to cooperate?