Well, since I actually know people who've been denied home loans, I'll have to conclude you're too busy with your personal politics to know what's really going on.
But you dodged the more critical point: The law does not force lenders to offer and market terms that lure people into loans they can't afford. They could have complied with traditional (but higher interest) loans. The risk of default would not have been higher (notice how the terms they offered ultimately resulted in a lot of defaults?), and it would've been clearer up front whether the buyer would be able to afford the loan. But that's not what the lenders wanted, so it's not what they chose. They wanted more business, so they marketed non-traditional loans agressively.
That's the key point. If they were "forced" to offer this product by the government (but really didn't want to), they wouldn't have been actively marketing it. But don't let simple facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
Just out of curiousity, is this the informed opinion of one who
lives in China and has lived there for many years
no longer lives in China, but did live there for many years
has at least visited China (and spent his time there actually observing the government)
holds a diplomatic, intelligence, or other position that gives him special insight into the operations and motives of the Chinese government, or
really doesn't know anything about it but likes to talk trash about any foreign regime worse than his own?
Cause, you know, I know the Chinese government doesn't respect human rights, and I know their excuses and whining about not being "lectured to" by the West are crap, but at the same time I also know that we tend to get a very one-sided view, and if you don't think there's a propoganda machine involved in your perception of the Chinese government you're quite naive. So most people who would try to predict the outcome of a Chinese citizen's interaction with his government are in no position to do so.
Just sayin'.
Damnit... accidentally submitted my response as "HTML Formatted"... Here it is in readable form.
I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative".
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point, but then "innovative" is a tricky thing to nail down in practice.
I'd return instead to the idea of just worrying about "obvious"-ness; and in that context I'd suggest this test: When the first filing comes in, publish the problem (not the solution) and see how many people come up with the same solution in X amount of time. If more than Y people come up with the same solution, it was apparently obvious. If X is short enough and Y is enough people (probably not that many, but clearly more than just 1 or 2), then you'd have a good case.
You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry.
If the submission in your system has to include a solution, then this alredy exists. Document what you've done in enough detail that you could file a patent, but don't. Instead, stash the documents away in a manner that's date-verifiable, and if someone comes along with a patent claim you have documented prior art.
This is actually more advantageous to the inventor than a formal "public domain filing for free" system. Filing a patent is a trade -- I make the information public in exchange for exlusive rights. If I don't get the exclusive rights, yet I want to be able to profit on the idea, then I might want to keep the information secret. (And yes, it's possible my motives are such that I want the information to be public; nothing in the current system prevents me publishing my designs outside the patent system, which again would prevent future patents.)
The idea of a "free" filing is also impractical. Low-fee maybe, but free? Who pays to manage the data? Once you've made it free, there will be people trying to public-patent everything under the sun, so it isn't going to be a trivial cost to the patent office even if you're not actively sifting them like a paid patent.
All that said, I don't believe your assertion that the barriers to entry in the patent system are all that high as to be "the problem".
There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy.
I agree that the current system is broken. I just don't agree with your proposed solutions. I beileve your solutions would wipe out patents altogether. I wasn't intending to be a smart-ass when I suggested that might be your intent; some people really do want a no-patent system, you know.
This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy
Actually, if I understand what you mean, it's not. It's not that big companies are worried about the time they'd sink into patent searches; it's that in a patent infringement case, penalties are a lot steeper if it is shown that the infringing party knew about the patent. (The language probably includes "or should have known".) So a company with a no-patent-search policy is more likely to infringe patents but, as those are brought to their attention they can negotiate licensing from a not-too-disadvantaged position. If they find the patent in an up-front search, then they have to negotiate in a patent-holder-has-all-the-cards position, or else willfully infringe the patent and lose their shirt in the ensuing legal battle.
I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative".
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point, but then "innovative" is a tricky thing to nail down in practice.
I'd return instead to the idea of just worrying about "obvious"-ness; and in that context I'd suggest this test: When the first filing comes in, publish the problem (not the solution) and see how many people come up with the same solution in X amount of time. If more than Y people come up with the same solution, it was apparently obvious. If X is short enough and Y is enough people (probably not that many, but clearly more than just 1 or 2), then you'd have a good case.
You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry.
If the submission in your system has to include a solution, then this alredy exists. Document what you've done in enough detail that you could file a patent, stash the documents away in a manner that's date-verifiable, and if someone comes along with a patent claim you have documented prior art.
This is actually more advantageous to the inventor than a formal "public domain filing for free" system. Filing a patent is a trade -- I make the information public in exchange for exlusive rights. If I don't get the exclusive rights, yet I want to be able to profit on the idea, then I might want to keep the information secret. (And yes, it's possible my motives are such that I want the information to be public; nothing in the current system prevents me publishing my designs outside the patent system, which again would prevent future patents.)
The idea of a "free" filing is also impractical. Low-fee maybe, but free? Who pays to manage the data? Once you've made it free, there will be people trying to public-patent everything under the sun, so it isn't going to be a trivial cost to the patent office even if you're not actively sifting them like a paid patent.
All that said, I don't believe your assertion that the barriers to entry in the patent system are all that high as to be "the problem".
There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy.
I agree that the current system is broken. I just don't agree with your proposed solutions. I beileve your solutions would wipe out patents altogether. I wasn't intending to be a smart-ass when I suggested that might be your intent; some people really do want a no-patent system, you know.
This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy
Actually, if I understand what you mean, it's not. It's not that big companies are worried about the time they'd sink into patent searches; it's that in a patent infringement case, penalties are a lot steeper if it is shown that the infringing party knew about the patent. (The language probably includes "or should have known".) So a company with a no-patent-search policy is more likely to infringe patents but, as those are brought to their attention they can negotiate licensing from a not-too-disadvantaged position. If they find the patent in an up-front search, then they have to negotiate in a patent-holder-has-all-the-cards position, or else willfully infringe the patent and lose their shirt in the ensuing legal battle.
If two people are working on a problem, and both reach similar solutions in a short time frame, that makes the solution obvious? Hardly.
Using public submissions of "ideas" as a baseline for "obvious"? How does that work? If X,XXX people state the problem, that somehow makes the solution more obvious? Or do you not know that the patent covers the solution and not the problem? A lot of people don't seem to know that...
Look, if you don't want to have a patent system, just say so.
Of course it wouldn't be expired in Egypt if this law passes.
I really can't tell if you're joking. If not, RTFA. Egypt is not extending general copyright; it's trying to assert copyright-like control over specific likenesses.
Although they use the word "copyright" to describe this, it really isn't copyright in the conventional sense. It doesn't really fit into the IP framework at all; it's just an extra right claimed by a national government that almost sort of looks like copyright. So pointing out that prior art is normally a concept of patent rather than copyright is a bit like syaing that an airplane doesn't have a rudder because boats, not cars, have rudders.
Really, this is just another non-story about the Egyptian government wanting to assert control it can't enforce over ancient icons it feels are an important part of its country's heritage. Not evil per se, just not in tune with reality.
Best quote from the article:
"If the law is passed then it will be applied in all countries of the world so that we can protect our interests," Hawass said.
Good luck with that, Chief. Of course, they're already making excuses to save face for the fact that they won't be able to enforce against the Luxor resort in Las Vegas, so I'd say it's clear how much this will matter.
What law was it that made it illegal to deny loans, again? First I've heard of it; I'd like to see a reference to the actual code so I can get an accurate perspective on the situation.
That said, regardless of whether ARM's are "the" problem, they (and the way they were marketed) are most definitely "a" problem. To claim that predatory lending doesn't exist or didn't contribute to the subprime crisis shows either a serious lack of exposure to the market over the past decade or a bias to the level of dishonesty.
There are many reasons I'm skeptical of your "Congress is the bad guy for forcing the lenders' hands" claim. Notice that the terms that got so many folks in trouble aren't being offered quite so readily any more. Suddenly the lenders are all breaking the law? I doubt it.
Did the law require ultra-low up front teaser rates, marketing that focused only on these up-front rates, interest-only provisions, balloon payments, etc.? Or maybe did the lenders choose to offer those terms instead of just higher-rate fixed loans for higher-risk borrowers because it would get them more business?
No. If you read what I wrote, you wouldn't have had to ask that. I'm done talking about a claim I didn't make, so if you'd like to continue this discussion go back and read what I did say.
What, exactly, never happened? Some specific story I didn't mention? Fascinating. Then again, the story you bring up did happen -- just not the way it was originally reported. If you don't factor human reaction -- and even human error or stupidity -- into the equation, you're just asking for problems down the road. But I digress...
I wasn't talking about the woman in Maine. I was talking about the issue in general, that if you break a bulb you have a (small) mercury spill. Yes, it's manageable, if you know about it and if you know how to clean it up.
So whatever did or didn't happen in Maine, here's a situation that has happened, more than once, and will happen more frequently with wider CFL use. Someone broke a bulb, and didn't know they needed to take special precautions to clean it up.
We're not talking about just internet-going folk getting CFL's. We're not talking about just the brightest 10% of the population. Not even just the brightest 90%. We're talking about everyone. That's the context in which an answer is required. That doesn't mean its an impossible problem, but it is a problem that has to be addressed directly. Frankly, it may be as simple as including disposal and cleanup instructions in the package with the bulb.
But as I said, pointless comparisons between the amount of mercury that might end up on my floor from a CFL vs. the amount dumped into the environment in general by coal plants add nothing to the discussion and don't address the problem. They only serve to distract.
I mostly agree, but this legislation is not truly technoogy-neutral. There is not a single "general service lighting" efficiency standard (except for the backstop provision, which only takes effect if some required rulemaking doesn't take place between now and 2020); there is instead one standard for incandescants, another for CFL's, etc.
The bill spends a great amount of verbage trying to describe and categorize the different technologies, and in truth as soon as you see that you know it's not doing things as "right" as it could...
Actually, the issue of lightbulb efficiency is a relatively minor point buried in a much more sweeping energy bill. While I haven't looked at the provisions and suspect they aren't the exact ones you're interested in, the bill does specifically set new standards for home appliances and AC, as well as places of business.
The aggregate savings of more efficient lighting is nothing to sneeze at, though.
This line of reasoning sounds great, until you consider the difference between "in the environment" and "in my living room". Neither is good. The latter is worse. If that seems narrow-minded to you, consider that the person buying the bulb (or not) is correctly assessing the risk to himself/herself and his/her family.
I'm generally in favor of switching to lower-power lights. If that means CFL, then as they resolve the problems with them I'm all for it. (I use CFL in a couple lamps that are on all the time, and will continue to do so even though they aren't quite as nice aesthetically.)
But this little issue of hazmat disposal needs to be dealt with seriously, without all the childish dismissals and meaningless comparisons to coal plant output and/or seafood.
The new rules are being phased in based on ranges of lumen output. I think the higest output ones are affected first, so the bulbs sold today that would be affected by the 2012 rules are probably 100W.
The 2013 rules include output typical for a 60W bulb today, requiring that such a bulb take no more than about 42W (if I recall the numbers correctly).
The law also stipulates further rule-making as more data is collected, with a backstop provision that all general service lamps must output 45 lumen per watt by 2020.
Currently there are exemptions and/or special rules for 3-way bulbs, candelabra base bulbs, rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, and various other special-purpose light bulbs.
The bill is targetted primarily at "general service lighting" applications, which it goes to great lengths to define. I'm not sure how a reptile lamp would be characterized, but certainly not as a general service lamp.
Yeah, I submitted a more accurate summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act the other day, but forgot that if it isn't sensationalized it gets rejected around here.
Actually, the new law doesn't ban incandescants (which would be an incredibly bad law); it merely sets efficiency standards where before there were none (which is actually a pretty good law). And G.E. claims to be well on the way to making incandescants that will meet the new standards.
(By the way, the standards that phase in over the next few years are still well below the efficiency of a CFL. Even the backstop provisions for 2020 -- 45 lumens per watt -- are at the low end of what a CFL can do. So if G.E. can make incandescants compete with CFL, as they say they can, then there's no issue here.)
Also, there are a bunch of exemptions and exceptions. Those allegedly-decorative candelabra bulbs have a different standard (nothing above 60W). Many special-purpose lights are exempt, and in some cases that just means the light has to be marketed as "for such-and-such use only".
So, you're saying that the only two possible architectures are (a) one in which code and data are treated identically, or (b) one in which you can't perform load operations on code?
I don't think you can do this with Access; at least not as of the latest version I used.
By nature, Access is not secure and doesn't let you control how a 3rd party (to whom you give the mdb file) will use the data. For that you want a real multi-tier database app.
Yes and no. Most modern architectures blur the distinction by allowing data and code to reside in the same storage, and even allowing you to treat a section of memory as data at one moment and code at the next (which in theory allows for some neat self-modifying code (but that hasn't proven useful in the consumer market at least) but in practice is the root cause of every email virus ever).
The principle difference, though, is that code is functional while data is expressive. You can argue that this is a fuzzy distinction itself, and in a sense you'd be right -- but that doesn't stop it from carrying very tangible 1st ammendment implications when applied to human language (in the US). So it's as good a test as any, IMO, to decide if a collection of 1's and 0's can be considered protected as a program.
And yes, there are cases where we could argue about whether a structure is functional or whether it's expressive. HTML tags. Certain DVD content. But the subject at hand -- a voting machine database -- are highly unlikely to fall in those gray areas.
Let's not pretend this was an enlightened attempt to make sure the lines were drawn properly. It was a technicality-seeking attempt to avoid releasing the requested information in spite of the legal requirement to do so.
An.mdb can contain more than just queries. It can also contain forms, reports, and VBA code to tie it all together into an almost-self-contained database app. (Only "almost-self-contained" because it still depends on the presenece of MS Access at runtime.)
So, I'd say that an.mdb file could very well contain a computer program in addition to the dataset. In which case whoever is responsible for providing the data is also responsible for separating it from any protected program, such as by exporting the data or creating a new.mdb without the program elements.
Actually, I'm well aware that you can record to CD from radio (though that isn't the focus of the article you linked, I assume it's waht you're suggesting). And still I say it's not competition for CD sales.
Why not? Well, it's a pain in the arse to actually get the recording you want. You won't be able to assemble the entire album in most cases -- the couple tracks the radio actually plays are only a sample of the band's music, so at best you're competing against sales of singles (does anybody still buy singles?). For the tracks you do get, even if you edit for perfect timing to start and end the track, you'll have a 3:05 radio edit with the DJ probably talking over the intro and/or outro, and possibly an unavoidable fade into the next song. You might get stereo separation, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. The recording levels probably won't be what they should (though more and more that's true of produced CD's as well, to be fair).
In short -- sure, the material cost is minimal, but you're going to do over $20 worth of work to get a crappy recording of part of an album you could've just bought outright for well under $20. If that's your bag, fine. At the "big picture" level (you know, the actual market), radio does not and cannot compete against CD sales.
It kind of looks like junior took over the "family business" and never really learned the ropes. He doesn't understand why the old man did the things the old ways, so figures now that he's in charge he doesn't have to play by those rules. Probably thinks it's brilliant business. But of course, as he makes a string of bad decisions and revenues drop, he has to find someone to blame. Couldn't be his own fault...
Ok, seriously... the radio exemption is sound marketing and worked as such for years. (Hint -- it isn't the raw quality of the music that makes Top 40 into Top 40.) Of course, I tend toward a free market view -- so if the labels don't want free advertising, maybe they shouldn't be forced to take it. Treating your advertising medium like a consumer doesn't make a lot of sense, but barring a shareholder lawsuit they shouldn't be compelled to make good business decisions.
Of course, there is an argument about equitable treatment. For decades the radio stations have built their own businesses around being the free advertiser of mainstream music. What exactly is the radio station to do if not play music to promote it? Not the labels' problem? Well, maybe, but then the labels did benefit from the radio stations' putting themselves in this position.
The bottom line is, radio play doesn't compete with a CD purchase or a download. As a consumer, I don't have control over the next song on the radio. I don't have control over when the radio plays music at all, vs. when they play other advertisements, news, other random talk, etc. That's what you get when you buy music -- the right to hear what you want when you want (current overzealous copyright interpretations notwtihstanding).
Same holds for satelite radio, and by all rights the exemption should've been extended to them. With internet radio, you could stray into a gray area, but as long as they're centrally controlled and stream their content, they should be in the same boat. The underlying technology behind the broadcast is irrelevant.
Great. Until enough people start doing it that a speculative "second-hand mainstream music" market forms to meet the demans, ultimately passing profit back to the RIAA labels while introducing yet ANOTHER middle-man.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since I actually know people who've been denied home loans, I'll have to conclude you're too busy with your personal politics to know what's really going on.
But you dodged the more critical point: The law does not force lenders to offer and market terms that lure people into loans they can't afford. They could have complied with traditional (but higher interest) loans. The risk of default would not have been higher (notice how the terms they offered ultimately resulted in a lot of defaults?), and it would've been clearer up front whether the buyer would be able to afford the loan. But that's not what the lenders wanted, so it's not what they chose. They wanted more business, so they marketed non-traditional loans agressively.
That's the key point. If they were "forced" to offer this product by the government (but really didn't want to), they wouldn't have been actively marketing it. But don't let simple facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
- lives in China and has lived there for many years
- no longer lives in China, but did live there for many years
- has at least visited China (and spent his time there actually observing the government)
- holds a diplomatic, intelligence, or other position that gives him special insight into the operations and motives of the Chinese government, or
- really doesn't know anything about it but likes to talk trash about any foreign regime worse than his own?
Cause, you know, I know the Chinese government doesn't respect human rights, and I know their excuses and whining about not being "lectured to" by the West are crap, but at the same time I also know that we tend to get a very one-sided view, and if you don't think there's a propoganda machine involved in your perception of the Chinese government you're quite naive. So most people who would try to predict the outcome of a Chinese citizen's interaction with his government are in no position to do so. Just sayin'.Damnit... accidentally submitted my response as "HTML Formatted"... Here it is in readable form.
I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative".
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point, but then "innovative" is a tricky thing to nail down in practice.
I'd return instead to the idea of just worrying about "obvious"-ness; and in that context I'd suggest this test: When the first filing comes in, publish the problem (not the solution) and see how many people come up with the same solution in X amount of time. If more than Y people come up with the same solution, it was apparently obvious. If X is short enough and Y is enough people (probably not that many, but clearly more than just 1 or 2), then you'd have a good case.
You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry.
If the submission in your system has to include a solution, then this alredy exists. Document what you've done in enough detail that you could file a patent, but don't. Instead, stash the documents away in a manner that's date-verifiable, and if someone comes along with a patent claim you have documented prior art.
This is actually more advantageous to the inventor than a formal "public domain filing for free" system. Filing a patent is a trade -- I make the information public in exchange for exlusive rights. If I don't get the exclusive rights, yet I want to be able to profit on the idea, then I might want to keep the information secret. (And yes, it's possible my motives are such that I want the information to be public; nothing in the current system prevents me publishing my designs outside the patent system, which again would prevent future patents.)
The idea of a "free" filing is also impractical. Low-fee maybe, but free? Who pays to manage the data? Once you've made it free, there will be people trying to public-patent everything under the sun, so it isn't going to be a trivial cost to the patent office even if you're not actively sifting them like a paid patent.
All that said, I don't believe your assertion that the barriers to entry in the patent system are all that high as to be "the problem".
There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy.
I agree that the current system is broken. I just don't agree with your proposed solutions. I beileve your solutions would wipe out patents altogether. I wasn't intending to be a smart-ass when I suggested that might be your intent; some people really do want a no-patent system, you know.
This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy
Actually, if I understand what you mean, it's not. It's not that big companies are worried about the time they'd sink into patent searches; it's that in a patent infringement case, penalties are a lot steeper if it is shown that the infringing party knew about the patent. (The language probably includes "or should have known".) So a company with a no-patent-search policy is more likely to infringe patents but, as those are brought to their attention they can negotiate licensing from a not-too-disadvantaged position. If they find the patent in an up-front search, then they have to negotiate in a patent-holder-has-all-the-cards position, or else willfully infringe the patent and lose their shirt in the ensuing legal battle.
I think that it makes the solution "less than innovative". Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point, but then "innovative" is a tricky thing to nail down in practice. I'd return instead to the idea of just worrying about "obvious"-ness; and in that context I'd suggest this test: When the first filing comes in, publish the problem (not the solution) and see how many people come up with the same solution in X amount of time. If more than Y people come up with the same solution, it was apparently obvious. If X is short enough and Y is enough people (probably not that many, but clearly more than just 1 or 2), then you'd have a good case. You simply allow people to submit applications for solutions to become "public-domain patents" without charge. The current barrier-to-entry in the patent system creates a void that facilitates frivolous patents. This eliminates that barrier-to-entry. If the submission in your system has to include a solution, then this alredy exists. Document what you've done in enough detail that you could file a patent, stash the documents away in a manner that's date-verifiable, and if someone comes along with a patent claim you have documented prior art. This is actually more advantageous to the inventor than a formal "public domain filing for free" system. Filing a patent is a trade -- I make the information public in exchange for exlusive rights. If I don't get the exclusive rights, yet I want to be able to profit on the idea, then I might want to keep the information secret. (And yes, it's possible my motives are such that I want the information to be public; nothing in the current system prevents me publishing my designs outside the patent system, which again would prevent future patents.) The idea of a "free" filing is also impractical. Low-fee maybe, but free? Who pays to manage the data? Once you've made it free, there will be people trying to public-patent everything under the sun, so it isn't going to be a trivial cost to the patent office even if you're not actively sifting them like a paid patent. All that said, I don't believe your assertion that the barriers to entry in the patent system are all that high as to be "the problem". There is no facilitation of innovation here - just protection of the wealthy. I agree that the current system is broken. I just don't agree with your proposed solutions. I beileve your solutions would wipe out patents altogether. I wasn't intending to be a smart-ass when I suggested that might be your intent; some people really do want a no-patent system, you know. This is why the big software companies have a strict no-patent-research policy Actually, if I understand what you mean, it's not. It's not that big companies are worried about the time they'd sink into patent searches; it's that in a patent infringement case, penalties are a lot steeper if it is shown that the infringing party knew about the patent. (The language probably includes "or should have known".) So a company with a no-patent-search policy is more likely to infringe patents but, as those are brought to their attention they can negotiate licensing from a not-too-disadvantaged position. If they find the patent in an up-front search, then they have to negotiate in a patent-holder-has-all-the-cards position, or else willfully infringe the patent and lose their shirt in the ensuing legal battle.
It does not moot my point. Institutionalizing a flaw in the system, even if the flaw is already seen to exist, is not a step in the right direction.
If two people are working on a problem, and both reach similar solutions in a short time frame, that makes the solution obvious? Hardly.
Using public submissions of "ideas" as a baseline for "obvious"? How does that work? If X,XXX people state the problem, that somehow makes the solution more obvious? Or do you not know that the patent covers the solution and not the problem? A lot of people don't seem to know that...
Look, if you don't want to have a patent system, just say so.
Of course it wouldn't be expired in Egypt if this law passes.
I really can't tell if you're joking. If not, RTFA. Egypt is not extending general copyright; it's trying to assert copyright-like control over specific likenesses.
Although they use the word "copyright" to describe this, it really isn't copyright in the conventional sense. It doesn't really fit into the IP framework at all; it's just an extra right claimed by a national government that almost sort of looks like copyright. So pointing out that prior art is normally a concept of patent rather than copyright is a bit like syaing that an airplane doesn't have a rudder because boats, not cars, have rudders.
Really, this is just another non-story about the Egyptian government wanting to assert control it can't enforce over ancient icons it feels are an important part of its country's heritage. Not evil per se, just not in tune with reality.
Best quote from the article:
"If the law is passed then it will be applied in all countries of the world so that we can protect our interests," Hawass said.
Good luck with that, Chief. Of course, they're already making excuses to save face for the fact that they won't be able to enforce against the Luxor resort in Las Vegas, so I'd say it's clear how much this will matter.
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general
Wrong. A free market makes many bad assumptions about information, but it does not assume that people weigh costs to anyone other than themselves.
What law was it that made it illegal to deny loans, again? First I've heard of it; I'd like to see a reference to the actual code so I can get an accurate perspective on the situation.
That said, regardless of whether ARM's are "the" problem, they (and the way they were marketed) are most definitely "a" problem. To claim that predatory lending doesn't exist or didn't contribute to the subprime crisis shows either a serious lack of exposure to the market over the past decade or a bias to the level of dishonesty.
There are many reasons I'm skeptical of your "Congress is the bad guy for forcing the lenders' hands" claim. Notice that the terms that got so many folks in trouble aren't being offered quite so readily any more. Suddenly the lenders are all breaking the law? I doubt it.
Did the law require ultra-low up front teaser rates, marketing that focused only on these up-front rates, interest-only provisions, balloon payments, etc.? Or maybe did the lenders choose to offer those terms instead of just higher-rate fixed loans for higher-risk borrowers because it would get them more business?
No. If you read what I wrote, you wouldn't have had to ask that. I'm done talking about a claim I didn't make, so if you'd like to continue this discussion go back and read what I did say.
What, exactly, never happened? Some specific story I didn't mention? Fascinating. Then again, the story you bring up did happen -- just not the way it was originally reported. If you don't factor human reaction -- and even human error or stupidity -- into the equation, you're just asking for problems down the road. But I digress...
I wasn't talking about the woman in Maine. I was talking about the issue in general, that if you break a bulb you have a (small) mercury spill. Yes, it's manageable, if you know about it and if you know how to clean it up.
So whatever did or didn't happen in Maine, here's a situation that has happened, more than once, and will happen more frequently with wider CFL use. Someone broke a bulb, and didn't know they needed to take special precautions to clean it up.
We're not talking about just internet-going folk getting CFL's. We're not talking about just the brightest 10% of the population. Not even just the brightest 90%. We're talking about everyone. That's the context in which an answer is required. That doesn't mean its an impossible problem, but it is a problem that has to be addressed directly. Frankly, it may be as simple as including disposal and cleanup instructions in the package with the bulb.
But as I said, pointless comparisons between the amount of mercury that might end up on my floor from a CFL vs. the amount dumped into the environment in general by coal plants add nothing to the discussion and don't address the problem. They only serve to distract.
I mostly agree, but this legislation is not truly technoogy-neutral. There is not a single "general service lighting" efficiency standard (except for the backstop provision, which only takes effect if some required rulemaking doesn't take place between now and 2020); there is instead one standard for incandescants, another for CFL's, etc. The bill spends a great amount of verbage trying to describe and categorize the different technologies, and in truth as soon as you see that you know it's not doing things as "right" as it could...
Actually, the issue of lightbulb efficiency is a relatively minor point buried in a much more sweeping energy bill. While I haven't looked at the provisions and suspect they aren't the exact ones you're interested in, the bill does specifically set new standards for home appliances and AC, as well as places of business. The aggregate savings of more efficient lighting is nothing to sneeze at, though.
This line of reasoning sounds great, until you consider the difference between "in the environment" and "in my living room". Neither is good. The latter is worse. If that seems narrow-minded to you, consider that the person buying the bulb (or not) is correctly assessing the risk to himself/herself and his/her family.
I'm generally in favor of switching to lower-power lights. If that means CFL, then as they resolve the problems with them I'm all for it. (I use CFL in a couple lamps that are on all the time, and will continue to do so even though they aren't quite as nice aesthetically.)
But this little issue of hazmat disposal needs to be dealt with seriously, without all the childish dismissals and meaningless comparisons to coal plant output and/or seafood.
The new rules are being phased in based on ranges of lumen output. I think the higest output ones are affected first, so the bulbs sold today that would be affected by the 2012 rules are probably 100W.
The 2013 rules include output typical for a 60W bulb today, requiring that such a bulb take no more than about 42W (if I recall the numbers correctly).
The law also stipulates further rule-making as more data is collected, with a backstop provision that all general service lamps must output 45 lumen per watt by 2020.
Currently there are exemptions and/or special rules for 3-way bulbs, candelabra base bulbs, rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, and various other special-purpose light bulbs.
The bill is targetted primarily at "general service lighting" applications, which it goes to great lengths to define. I'm not sure how a reptile lamp would be characterized, but certainly not as a general service lamp.
Yeah, I submitted a more accurate summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act the other day, but forgot that if it isn't sensationalized it gets rejected around here.
Actually, the new law doesn't ban incandescants (which would be an incredibly bad law); it merely sets efficiency standards where before there were none (which is actually a pretty good law). And G.E. claims to be well on the way to making incandescants that will meet the new standards.
(By the way, the standards that phase in over the next few years are still well below the efficiency of a CFL. Even the backstop provisions for 2020 -- 45 lumens per watt -- are at the low end of what a CFL can do. So if G.E. can make incandescants compete with CFL, as they say they can, then there's no issue here.)
Also, there are a bunch of exemptions and exceptions. Those allegedly-decorative candelabra bulbs have a different standard (nothing above 60W). Many special-purpose lights are exempt, and in some cases that just means the light has to be marketed as "for such-and-such use only".
But by all means, let's all panic.
So, you're saying that the only two possible architectures are (a) one in which code and data are treated identically, or (b) one in which you can't perform load operations on code?
What an amazingly narrow world view.
The bits are real. The world they represent is not. The usage of "virtual" is correct, as it modifies "world" and not "bits".
"Ce n'est pas un monde."
I don't think you can do this with Access; at least not as of the latest version I used.
By nature, Access is not secure and doesn't let you control how a 3rd party (to whom you give the mdb file) will use the data. For that you want a real multi-tier database app.
Yes and no. Most modern architectures blur the distinction by allowing data and code to reside in the same storage, and even allowing you to treat a section of memory as data at one moment and code at the next (which in theory allows for some neat self-modifying code (but that hasn't proven useful in the consumer market at least) but in practice is the root cause of every email virus ever).
The principle difference, though, is that code is functional while data is expressive. You can argue that this is a fuzzy distinction itself, and in a sense you'd be right -- but that doesn't stop it from carrying very tangible 1st ammendment implications when applied to human language (in the US). So it's as good a test as any, IMO, to decide if a collection of 1's and 0's can be considered protected as a program.
And yes, there are cases where we could argue about whether a structure is functional or whether it's expressive. HTML tags. Certain DVD content. But the subject at hand -- a voting machine database -- are highly unlikely to fall in those gray areas.
Let's not pretend this was an enlightened attempt to make sure the lines were drawn properly. It was a technicality-seeking attempt to avoid releasing the requested information in spite of the legal requirement to do so.
An .mdb can contain more than just queries. It can also contain forms, reports, and VBA code to tie it all together into an almost-self-contained database app. (Only "almost-self-contained" because it still depends on the presenece of MS Access at runtime.)
.mdb file could very well contain a computer program in addition to the dataset. In which case whoever is responsible for providing the data is also responsible for separating it from any protected program, such as by exporting the data or creating a new .mdb without the program elements.
So, I'd say that an
Actually, I'm well aware that you can record to CD from radio (though that isn't the focus of the article you linked, I assume it's waht you're suggesting). And still I say it's not competition for CD sales.
Why not? Well, it's a pain in the arse to actually get the recording you want. You won't be able to assemble the entire album in most cases -- the couple tracks the radio actually plays are only a sample of the band's music, so at best you're competing against sales of singles (does anybody still buy singles?). For the tracks you do get, even if you edit for perfect timing to start and end the track, you'll have a 3:05 radio edit with the DJ probably talking over the intro and/or outro, and possibly an unavoidable fade into the next song. You might get stereo separation, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. The recording levels probably won't be what they should (though more and more that's true of produced CD's as well, to be fair).
In short -- sure, the material cost is minimal, but you're going to do over $20 worth of work to get a crappy recording of part of an album you could've just bought outright for well under $20. If that's your bag, fine. At the "big picture" level (you know, the actual market), radio does not and cannot compete against CD sales.
It kind of looks like junior took over the "family business" and never really learned the ropes. He doesn't understand why the old man did the things the old ways, so figures now that he's in charge he doesn't have to play by those rules. Probably thinks it's brilliant business. But of course, as he makes a string of bad decisions and revenues drop, he has to find someone to blame. Couldn't be his own fault...
Ok, seriously... the radio exemption is sound marketing and worked as such for years. (Hint -- it isn't the raw quality of the music that makes Top 40 into Top 40.) Of course, I tend toward a free market view -- so if the labels don't want free advertising, maybe they shouldn't be forced to take it. Treating your advertising medium like a consumer doesn't make a lot of sense, but barring a shareholder lawsuit they shouldn't be compelled to make good business decisions.
Of course, there is an argument about equitable treatment. For decades the radio stations have built their own businesses around being the free advertiser of mainstream music. What exactly is the radio station to do if not play music to promote it? Not the labels' problem? Well, maybe, but then the labels did benefit from the radio stations' putting themselves in this position.
The bottom line is, radio play doesn't compete with a CD purchase or a download. As a consumer, I don't have control over the next song on the radio. I don't have control over when the radio plays music at all, vs. when they play other advertisements, news, other random talk, etc. That's what you get when you buy music -- the right to hear what you want when you want (current overzealous copyright interpretations notwtihstanding).
Same holds for satelite radio, and by all rights the exemption should've been extended to them. With internet radio, you could stray into a gray area, but as long as they're centrally controlled and stream their content, they should be in the same boat. The underlying technology behind the broadcast is irrelevant.
Great. Until enough people start doing it that a speculative "second-hand mainstream music" market forms to meet the demans, ultimately passing profit back to the RIAA labels while introducing yet ANOTHER middle-man.