Let your Senators and congressman know your feeling on this issue. Only through a widespread outcry will the legislators understand that our freedoms and privacy (which is a cornerstone of freedom) is dear and we understand the implication of this legislation. Given the track record of say Bush in office who directed the Justice Department to try and bring cases against Democratic Legislators (so much so that several quit, others fired), we can't trust the government to always act in our best interest (mostly but not always). Once a privacy is pried open, its hard to get the sardine can closed again.
Lets look at the other problem, lets say there are mulitple problems, a crash say, and somewhere else close by a mugging in progress. If communications are cut off, no 911 access, no alerting of police. You don't think that knowledge would foster mob action akin to the lootings that happened in cities during the second blackout. The first gave people the idea that and they were prepared to act the during the second.
Here you would have people trapped, and cut off from help. You think that is wise. Bart is just trying (like the military under Bush) to control the story, not let any information out. I think that is an extremely dangerous and wrong headed decision.
There is no free energy. If you are stealing energy from the weather system, the weather system will change and become a weather system with less energy. If you try to steal energy from the ocean waves, the ocean ecologies will be affected.
When you farm, you are mining material from the soil, we put back through petro cemicals som of what is taken, but the other solid matter is just gone. Nothing is free, your just mining the soil.
Burning up petroleum to run cars around is just burning up a finite resource that we have almost taken half of the existing stocks from the ground.
We don't have much in the way of long term planning around a sustainable earth, either looking at energy resources, food resources or population size. Throw in a good dose of man aided global warming and things could change rather rapidly and within our lifetime, and not for the better.
The Capitalist system with its sole purpose to make a profit may be the single most destructive force on the planet. It has no breaks on externalized cost or collarteral damage, just the profits that can be had today, let someone else clean up my mess tommorrow.
Well lets look at the facts then. The Bush Supreme Court has made companies, people (the courts not the democracy)(a capitalistic entity a person, what clearer sign of the triumph of Cap over dem?) There is a ultra-rich and corporate sponsored initiatives to suppress voter turnout, (because, as they have said themselves, a large turnout does not favor the Republican Party), they are moving to remove the right to vote for the poor, students, homeless, non-drivers... In essence this rich capitalist crowd is saying as you so aptly put it "FU". There has been rolling back of Bankruptcy protections, the arrow is pointing back to debtors prison, one of the reasons we all left Europe where money and ownership trumped peoples lives. Now the constitutional protections from un warranted search and seizure have been relaxed by the courts (not the democracy). It seems that quote is rather correct. Your reaction though seems to either uphold that triumph or discounts the facts about the law and regulations that have changed in the recent years.
Good observation, with the reverse attempts by the Roman church to welcome back into the fold the Orthodox and maybe Anglican Churches if they just get more conservative in doctrine, which looked like it might happen until the conservative crackdowns by Rome in recent years. The same thing is going on with that secular religion Chinese Communism with Taiwan. They are in the heavy courting phase there.
My point exactly, the fact that one person knows your deepest darkest secrets and promises not to tell, does open your wallet to keep in their good graces and makes you listen when they tell you to do something. (for most people, others feel they can do anything and the Church gives them absolution so they are hedging their bets in the afterlife, an insurance plan). But for the church, money and influence.
What privacy advocates (and me) are complaining about is the legal language used. The problem with a bad law is that even though it may be written to handle a specific case, if the language is overly broad it may allow other things legally that were not intended and clearly are bad things. I great example is the Florida Stand your Ground law that has resulted in deaths that were preventable, and in the most recent case, someone that was pursuing and packing and killed an un-armed 19 year old kid carrying a soda and a bag of Skittles.
There are people that look at a EULA like this (say within Google) and say, well does that mean we can do this with the data and make more money? And the answer might be yes. Lets say for instance you have a some sensitive information, they find it, they send it to someone else, the sensitive information is used for insider trading, your companies stock fails and you go bankrupt. I don't think there is anything in the language of the agreement that would say that Google could not pass information on or that it was liable for any impact that might have.
Legal language is not for the everyday use, or intended use, it is to establish boundaries that define what you can do without violating the agreement. In this case it is like a very bad pre-nuptual agreement that gives away your house and your children with nothing in return. (except you still own them, just don't have exclusive use of them)
Well in Kansas the usual procedure would be to put the child in water, if she floated she is a witch and be burned at the stake, if she sunk, she is packing a hand gun and would be arrested if they the mouth to mouth recessitation worked. They learn about that in school the period after they learn about how God created the universe and that science and biologists are just lazy intellectuals selling people on a cute story to help continue getting grants for research.
I can see the new ticket form now, you get the child nightmare option for free, and a voucher for psyciatric treatment for 50 years for the sweet little one.
"But biology isn't a religion, and you can practice religion anyway without tax exempt status. So there are two huge differences between that comparison and what's going on here: the guy WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process."
But my point (sarcasm) (which you obviously missed) was that the fundamentalist Christians with their literal interpretation of the Bible and their trying to get their view that the few pages of old Jewish lore written down in the old testament constitute valid scientific theory and should be taught to impressionable young people as equally valid and contradictory to the well established principles of Evolution. They feel they can practice science without a license (usually you can't teach in school's now with the no child left behind act, science without a Masters degree in teaching science (as I understand)). So I was just turning it around showing that there are area's that disregard common sense and allow information to be peddled (for money, people are making salaries, text books with creationism are charging money for them, there is profit to be had).
There are some areas that are jealous of their monopoly on information, or even a type of information as this case is an example of.
"WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process" in the case of Evolution the approval process has been overridden by ideological legislators that want to say they have the approval of scientific information.
Charging for information, that is not bad, look at any book on self help, or special diets, or theories of UFO landings, or how to win on the stock market. The issue is whether that group can prevent alternative views being expressed (a freedom of speach issue I would imagine). Other areas control the flow of information by giving approved by licenses (and charging for them). So they are missing an opportunity to make money, or from writting a book that debunks this sites information. But an area that does not like competing information should not have the right to shut that down unless they are claiming that that information is backed by sound scientific research. That would be the case with Creationism as well. If they could present sound scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a supreme being that did not have a twisted sense of humor and that cavemen and dinosaurs lived together between 4016 bc and when the tower of babel existed then I would say, they too should be allowed to present in the schools. We try to present truth to our young ones.
Again your humor missed my humor.
"Now you're just making up licenses. And free speech wouldn't be shoehorned into such a license. Anyway, the law in question here is presumably specifically to prevent snake oil salesmanship."
My point is that just as the creationists are snake oil salesmen (its true some salesmen actually believe their stories, but they are making a living off selling the oil). The field of Job Creator appologists which include the right wing talk machine that get daily talking points as well as the politicians (mostly Republican but a few Dems too) who rely on the contributions from the "Job Creators" and do their bidding at the expense of the 99% of their constituents are the modern Snake Oil Salesmen. The ones that believe in that trickle down does anything but get those at the bottom wet with effluent not affluent.
As to shutting down biology departments, that is happening as funding is being cut down to higher education and ideology in areas such as stem cell research are targeted by the religious ideologues think they know what best for everyone.
My points were succinct and wrapped in exaggeration to be more efficient and have more impact but the essentials I think are sound.
I am sorry you did not understand the insights. Obviously others did. Maybe you should think about some sort of meds to help your concentration.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests". Seems like that fits in with the letter and spirit of the law and the constitution as well.
Geez, if you started this process where would it end. You would have to shut down all the biology departments in schools for practicing Religion without the tax exempt status. You would have to jail all the "Job Creator" appologists for operating without a "Snake Oil" license. It would be total anachry. Free speach no more,without paying someone for the right to say it (unless your already a member of the club and paid your dues).
Excellent layout of the motivation for creation of that system of control. I agree and think that they are finally starting to crumble, you have seen many changes in that church to liberalize to reach out to be more inclusive and less dictatorial, followed by the conservative crack down on sex, abortion, and even contraception by the church which would match up with the idea that they are trying to get back to basics of control levers for their congregations. There was that scandal about the Vatican Bank tied to the Mafia, the scandal of the pedophile priests and the cover ups all have left the church reeling, given already declining congregations in the developed world, they have been turning more and more to third worlds where they have more minds ready for control. I wonder how much long range planning they do about what economies will be going up (China, Brazil,..) and where they want to put their missionary dollars to most effect?
Looking at the articles list of what we have lost faith in there are a few things that make sense.
Church and Religion, after 911, with two wars, with a depression, of course people turn to religion because they offer a framework to feel good in.
HMO's because they take care of our illnesses and improve our heath.
Criminal Justice system because that (like doctors) are the people and institution we rely on as the last resort to bring justice. Which in this time of Gun crazy violence, Bernie Madoff thefts, embezzlement by public officials we have to rely on.
So what factors since 2002 might lead to the rest of the downturn in confidence.
Changes in laws that allow search and seizures that didn't happen before, which might explain the police downturn, add a few prominent torture cases in the news and maybe a gun related shooting in Florida with no investigation or arrest and that might explain some of that.
Two wars, (one because of a lie), thousands dead, tens of thousands of our solders damaged, hundreds of thousand civilian casualties. Maybe that explains some of the military downturn.
Pushes to de-fund public schools, breaking of unions, the no-child left behind fiasco, the leaving of the high paying manufacturing jobs, leaving less reason for education being economically important for business, add a dash of creationism idiocy into some public schools, and a youth culture that had turned away from eduction as a positive value and the whole system being pressured by the right wing with the agenda of making it fail so they can start making money off that segment of the market at the same time teaching their own brand of education, might explain some of that downturn.
The intense campaign to get rid of manufacturing, bust Unions by the right wing (starting with the public sector) is part of their move to increase the value of ownership at the expense of the workers that make them their money. They just don't want to share the wealth. Which both explains the downturn in Union and Big Business. But of course Big Business has been caught red handed polluting , perpetrating fraud (ENRON), Destroying the environment on a mass scale (Gulf).
The Presidency has had one president (Bush) that nearly bankrupted us with two wars and a tax cut, plus Tarp (with no strings to Wall Street, are they for real) and an economic collapse. Then the Right Wing Hate Machine trying desperately to blame Obama for the mess Bush and his party got us into. The lack of respect that the Republicans show for the office of the President does not help. I wonder if they think if they get into office, anyone is going to show them any more respect or if they are going to follow the Republican example?
Banks have been hard pressed because of low fed funds rates, they have had to start charging fees to make some profit because the don't have the interest spreads they used to to siphon off some profit from accounts, no one likes fee's, add the foreclosure fallout of their bad decisions and you have a good explanation for bad Bank confidence (oh yes and a few bank failures to boot).
Well Congress has been miss-behaving for years, more so lately with the blatant lack of any responsibility to the country to govern using our two party system. This no compromise on ultra right wing principles has left the country legislatively leaderless. It is remarkable that Obama has been able to get any good legislation through.
The "Left Wing Media" is a myth. It is really corporate media controlled by about 5 companies and they have stopped doing journalism and they filter on conservative ideology and sensationalism as exampled by the almost total lack of coverage of the tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens that were protesting Scott Walker initially. Many news casts ignored that rather large and important news story, which was unprecedented in recent years. But the right wing keeps crying "Left Wing Media", "Left Wing Media". They would probably accuse Regan of being "Left Wing" as well. Its all
Thank God we generally succumb to our evolved urges whether in culturally acceptable ways or other ways, but it is troubling that some populations are starting to dwindle, although that is best for the planet, but can be problematic for the vote. I didn't quite get the "use of sex as a weapon of population mind control" I can see the mind control as a way for the Roman Catholic Church keeping their Churches filled and their power base intact, but the "population mind control" has me stumped.
Sorry I'm confused. If you look at entertainment, and divorce rate, and the adult industry, they are billion if not trillions of dollars. The hypocrisy is the public face that people try to maintain. I contend that the money speaks for itself and only a few people are wanting to be the arbiters of information, they are vocal and use public shame and guilt to try and impress their standards. They are so off base as to be caricatures of old Puritan ethics that we in the world have been trying to shed for hundreds of years. (at least most of us).
Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive. Like with burning of books, its only one segment that gets some little bit of power and impresses their will on others. I am reminded of the movie "The Name of the Rose" (1986) with Sean Connery, a good example of that type of twisted thinking and the lengths some will go to to make others do or not do, or not see, or not read, things they think are bad. In that case it was the logic of Aristotle if I remember because one monk thought it underminded the Church, throw in a little inquisition and some burnings of some people and you have a rollicking medival parable of what is going on today. Prudes to the back of the bus!
Ahh Catch 22 all over again. This prudish anti-natural anti-sensual puritan ethic is what causes so much trouble in the world, not the least is the troubles from fights to wars caused by sexual repression exploding out in other area's of peoples lives. The assumptions of what is bad here (love as opposed to say war) should be what is being questioned. We are regressing to older times where old ladies with umbrellas would take after children who were holding hands in public. Lets not go there shall we?
Give a republican party who's stated primary goal it to make Obama a one term president, and the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block any progress and judicial nominations, and handed a depression from the previous administration and the Tarp debt and the need for additional stimulus spending to stop the free falling economy, I would say Obama has done a wonderful job and actually got some legislation passed that will do good. The auto industry was saved with all those jobs, pre-existing conditions are starting to be covered, many millions of people can now get coverage that they could not before. It is a start. It used to be that the Insurance companies could cherry pick their clients, and if you suddenly had a medical expense, find all possible ways to deny coverage, just to make a buck.
Health care and hospitals should not be for profit. It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive, that and the fact that so many people are outside the system but we have to (and should) give them care when needed. (It's the Christian thing to do).
One company that was given load guarantee's ( I don't think Solyndra got money, just loan guarantees) is one of a number of companies that are being supported towards that goal of energy independence. A worthy goal. If you think all businesses have to survive, your not living in the real world, this is just used as a right wing talking point to try to achieve that primary goal (listed above).
The idea that government picks winners is bogus. The winners or shall I say whiners are the ones benefiting from the governments support of oil and agriculture. You don't think banks with loans or private capital groups don't do the exact same thing?
And if you think SS is a ponzy scheme, you proably think your money is really in the bank too.
"And they very well may make a distinction between snatching a copy for yourself and depriving the original owner of the use of their property." interesting statement. I don't know but the code may have been written by the fellow which muddies the water about the intent of the IP laws and companies being able to get you to sign over any of your IP to them. The copyright law is and has been to allow the intellectual creator a period of time to benefit from their IP, not it has been turned into a commodity that can be bought and sold by people who are not the creators. I think the laws should be re-written so that the original creators always hold the rights (for the time period) but can allow say an employer free licensing (but not exclusive) use of the IP. That would dramatically change the business model and probably properly compensate the true creators of such works. The executives that clip the coupons of IP would have to pay for that privilege.
Well your absolutely right about that, but maybe not, they did even in Columbus's day believe that you could sail off then end of the ocean. You are talking about the scientific intelligentsia that did not believe the earth was flat, but just talk to any sailor at the time.
But Galileo was persecuted for his theory of heliocentrism "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[9][10] " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei) much like what we see today with the Theory of Evolution being supported as possibility and not established fact by the Creationists. Seems like the same song with the global warming.
The Wiki also talks about
"Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) may have argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[77] Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote that the Earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[78] The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans."
Which places Christian Theologians basing Flat Earth on scripture as late as 547
"Bishop Isidore of Seville (560 – 636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, the Etymologies diverse views such as that the Earth "resembles a wheel"[86] resembling Anaximander in language and the map that he provided. This was widely interpreted as referring to a flat disc-shaped Earth.[87][88]"
or
"St Vergilius of Salzburg (c.700 – 784), in the middle of the eighth century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas which St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary's reply, dated 748, where he wrote: "As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."[101]"
which places ideas of Flat Earth taught by members of the Church at the time of Popes.
"However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos."
Which says that the representation of Earth as an orb in Europe became known at the time of Columbus.
"However Tattersall shows that in many vernacular works in 12th and 13th century French texts the Earth was considered "round like a table" rather than "round like an apple". "In virtually all the examples quoted...from epics and from non-'historical' romances (that is, works of a less learned character) the actual form of words used suggests strongly a circle rather than a sphere.[113]
Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth."
Which seems to indicate that those voyages were the proof that the theory was correct. Up until then what the people in general believed was probably a mixture and probably more a feeling that Earth was a circle for most of that time.
Sorry I always confuse the copyright and patent times, it appears to be 20 years from earliest claimed filing date, and filed before 1995 17 years from issue or 20 years from earliest claimed domestic priority date, the longer term applying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law)
So for more recent patents, its 20 years or 57% of what I said. I am not against patents or copyright. Copyright for up to 120 years for regurlar works that is 70 years after the death of the author or 120 years after creation if work for hire or 95 years after publication whichever is shorter.
We have Sonny Bono to thank for that monstrosity, all to keep Disney's Steamboat Willy steaming along with profits.
But in terms of Patents, am I wrong that a patent can be renewed multiple times with minor changes to extend the protection of a patent?
Certainly the Copyright laws are counter productive (literally). The Patent law with renewals the same. Lets not talk about software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Let your Senators and congressman know your feeling on this issue. Only through a widespread outcry will the legislators understand that our freedoms and privacy (which is a cornerstone of freedom) is dear and we understand the implication of this legislation. Given the track record of say Bush in office who directed the Justice Department to try and bring cases against Democratic Legislators (so much so that several quit, others fired), we can't trust the government to always act in our best interest (mostly but not always). Once a privacy is pried open, its hard to get the sardine can closed again.
Lets look at the other problem, lets say there are mulitple problems, a crash say, and somewhere else close by a mugging in progress. If communications are cut off, no 911 access, no alerting of police. You don't think that knowledge would foster mob action akin to the lootings that happened in cities during the second blackout. The first gave people the idea that and they were prepared to act the during the second.
Here you would have people trapped, and cut off from help. You think that is wise. Bart is just trying (like the military under Bush) to control the story, not let any information out. I think that is an extremely dangerous and wrong headed decision.
Where can we view these video's?
Any large scape project impact on a large scale.
There is no free energy. If you are stealing energy from the weather system, the weather system will change and become a weather system with less energy. If you try to steal energy from the ocean waves, the ocean ecologies will be affected.
When you farm, you are mining material from the soil, we put back through petro cemicals som of what is taken, but the other solid matter is just gone. Nothing is free, your just mining the soil.
Burning up petroleum to run cars around is just burning up a finite resource that we have almost taken half of the existing stocks from the ground.
We don't have much in the way of long term planning around a sustainable earth, either looking at energy resources, food resources or population size. Throw in a good dose of man aided global warming and things could change rather rapidly and within our lifetime, and not for the better.
The Capitalist system with its sole purpose to make a profit may be the single most destructive force on the planet. It has no breaks on externalized cost or collarteral damage, just the profits that can be had today, let someone else clean up my mess tommorrow.
Well lets look at the facts then. The Bush Supreme Court has made companies, people (the courts not the democracy)(a capitalistic entity a person, what clearer sign of the triumph of Cap over dem?) There is a ultra-rich and corporate sponsored initiatives to suppress voter turnout, (because, as they have said themselves, a large turnout does not favor the Republican Party), they are moving to remove the right to vote for the poor, students, homeless, non-drivers ... In essence this rich capitalist crowd is saying as you so aptly put it "FU". There has been rolling back of Bankruptcy protections, the arrow is pointing back to debtors prison, one of the reasons we all left Europe where money and ownership trumped peoples lives. Now the constitutional protections from un warranted search and seizure have been relaxed by the courts (not the democracy). It seems that quote is rather correct. Your reaction though seems to either uphold that triumph or discounts the facts about the law and regulations that have changed in the recent years.
Good observation, with the reverse attempts by the Roman church to welcome back into the fold the Orthodox and maybe Anglican Churches if they just get more conservative in doctrine, which looked like it might happen until the conservative crackdowns by Rome in recent years. The same thing is going on with that secular religion Chinese Communism with Taiwan. They are in the heavy courting phase there.
My point exactly, the fact that one person knows your deepest darkest secrets and promises not to tell, does open your wallet to keep in their good graces and makes you listen when they tell you to do something. (for most people, others feel they can do anything and the Church gives them absolution so they are hedging their bets in the afterlife, an insurance plan). But for the church, money and influence.
What privacy advocates (and me) are complaining about is the legal language used. The problem with a bad law is that even though it may be written to handle a specific case, if the language is overly broad it may allow other things legally that were not intended and clearly are bad things. I great example is the Florida Stand your Ground law that has resulted in deaths that were preventable, and in the most recent case, someone that was pursuing and packing and killed an un-armed 19 year old kid carrying a soda and a bag of Skittles.
There are people that look at a EULA like this (say within Google) and say, well does that mean we can do this with the data and make more money? And the answer might be yes. Lets say for instance you have a some sensitive information, they find it, they send it to someone else, the sensitive information is used for insider trading, your companies stock fails and you go bankrupt. I don't think there is anything in the language of the agreement that would say that Google could not pass information on or that it was liable for any impact that might have.
Legal language is not for the everyday use, or intended use, it is to establish boundaries that define what you can do without violating the agreement. In this case it is like a very bad pre-nuptual agreement that gives away your house and your children with nothing in return. (except you still own them, just don't have exclusive use of them)
Keep your legs crossed and your mouth shut, expect in the confessional where you can tell us all but no one else. Whats wrong with this picture?
Well in Kansas the usual procedure would be to put the child in water, if she floated she is a witch and be burned at the stake, if she sunk, she is packing a hand gun and would be arrested if they the mouth to mouth recessitation worked. They learn about that in school the period after they learn about how God created the universe and that science and biologists are just lazy intellectuals selling people on a cute story to help continue getting grants for research.
I can see the new ticket form now, you get the child nightmare option for free, and a voucher for psyciatric treatment for 50 years for the sweet little one.
"But biology isn't a religion, and you can practice religion anyway without tax exempt status. So there are two huge differences between that comparison and what's going on here: the guy WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process."
But my point (sarcasm) (which you obviously missed) was that the fundamentalist Christians with their literal interpretation of the Bible and their trying to get their view that the few pages of old Jewish lore written down in the old testament constitute valid scientific theory and should be taught to impressionable young people as equally valid and contradictory to the well established principles of Evolution. They feel they can practice science without a license (usually you can't teach in school's now with the no child left behind act, science without a Masters degree in teaching science (as I understand)). So I was just turning it around showing that there are area's that disregard common sense and allow information to be peddled (for money, people are making salaries, text books with creationism are charging money for them, there is profit to be had).
There are some areas that are jealous of their monopoly on information, or even a type of information as this case is an example of.
"WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process" in the case of Evolution the approval process has been overridden by ideological legislators that want to say they have the approval of scientific information.
Charging for information, that is not bad, look at any book on self help, or special diets, or theories of UFO landings, or how to win on the stock market. The issue is whether that group can prevent alternative views being expressed (a freedom of speach issue I would imagine). Other areas control the flow of information by giving approved by licenses (and charging for them). So they are missing an opportunity to make money, or from writting a book that debunks this sites information. But an area that does not like competing information should not have the right to shut that down unless they are claiming that that information is backed by sound scientific research. That would be the case with Creationism as well. If they could present sound scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a supreme being that did not have a twisted sense of humor and that cavemen and dinosaurs lived together between 4016 bc and when the tower of babel existed then I would say, they too should be allowed to present in the schools. We try to present truth to our young ones.
Again your humor missed my humor.
"Now you're just making up licenses. And free speech wouldn't be shoehorned into such a license. Anyway, the law in question here is presumably specifically to prevent snake oil salesmanship."
My point is that just as the creationists are snake oil salesmen (its true some salesmen actually believe their stories, but they are making a living off selling the oil). The field of Job Creator appologists which include the right wing talk machine that get daily talking points as well as the politicians (mostly Republican but a few Dems too) who rely on the contributions from the "Job Creators" and do their bidding at the expense of the 99% of their constituents are the modern Snake Oil Salesmen. The ones that believe in that trickle down does anything but get those at the bottom wet with effluent not affluent.
As to shutting down biology departments, that is happening as funding is being cut down to higher education and ideology in areas such as stem cell research are targeted by the religious ideologues think they know what best for everyone.
My points were succinct and wrapped in exaggeration to be more efficient and have more impact but the essentials I think are sound.
I am sorry you did not understand the insights. Obviously others did. Maybe you should think about some sort of meds to help your concentration.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests". Seems like that fits in with the letter and spirit of the law and the constitution as well.
Geez, if you started this process where would it end. You would have to shut down all the biology departments in schools for practicing Religion without the tax exempt status. You would have to jail all the "Job Creator" appologists for operating without a "Snake Oil" license. It would be total anachry. Free speach no more ,without paying someone for the right to say it (unless your already a member of the club and paid your dues).
Excellent layout of the motivation for creation of that system of control. I agree and think that they are finally starting to crumble, you have seen many changes in that church to liberalize to reach out to be more inclusive and less dictatorial, followed by the conservative crack down on sex, abortion, and even contraception by the church which would match up with the idea that they are trying to get back to basics of control levers for their congregations. There was that scandal about the Vatican Bank tied to the Mafia, the scandal of the pedophile priests and the cover ups all have left the church reeling, given already declining congregations in the developed world, they have been turning more and more to third worlds where they have more minds ready for control. I wonder how much long range planning they do about what economies will be going up (China, Brazil, ..) and where they want to put their missionary dollars to most effect?
Looking at the articles list of what we have lost faith in there are a few things that make sense.
Church and Religion, after 911, with two wars, with a depression, of course people turn to religion because they offer a framework to feel good in.
HMO's because they take care of our illnesses and improve our heath.
Criminal Justice system because that (like doctors) are the people and institution we rely on as the last resort to bring justice. Which in this time of Gun crazy violence, Bernie Madoff thefts, embezzlement by public officials we have to rely on.
So what factors since 2002 might lead to the rest of the downturn in confidence.
Changes in laws that allow search and seizures that didn't happen before, which might explain the police downturn, add a few prominent torture cases in the news and maybe a gun related shooting in Florida with no investigation or arrest and that might explain some of that.
Two wars, (one because of a lie), thousands dead, tens of thousands of our solders damaged, hundreds of thousand civilian casualties. Maybe that explains some of the military downturn.
Pushes to de-fund public schools, breaking of unions, the no-child left behind fiasco, the leaving of the high paying manufacturing jobs, leaving less reason for education being economically important for business, add a dash of creationism idiocy into some public schools, and a youth culture that had turned away from eduction as a positive value and the whole system being pressured by the right wing with the agenda of making it fail so they can start making money off that segment of the market at the same time teaching their own brand of education, might explain some of that downturn.
The intense campaign to get rid of manufacturing, bust Unions by the right wing (starting with the public sector) is part of their move to increase the value of ownership at the expense of the workers that make them their money. They just don't want to share the wealth. Which both explains the downturn in Union and Big Business. But of course Big Business has been caught red handed polluting , perpetrating fraud (ENRON), Destroying the environment on a mass scale (Gulf).
The Presidency has had one president (Bush) that nearly bankrupted us with two wars and a tax cut, plus Tarp (with no strings to Wall Street, are they for real) and an economic collapse. Then the Right Wing Hate Machine trying desperately to blame Obama for the mess Bush and his party got us into. The lack of respect that the Republicans show for the office of the President does not help. I wonder if they think if they get into office, anyone is going to show them any more respect or if they are going to follow the Republican example?
Banks have been hard pressed because of low fed funds rates, they have had to start charging fees to make some profit because the don't have the interest spreads they used to to siphon off some profit from accounts, no one likes fee's, add the foreclosure fallout of their bad decisions and you have a good explanation for bad Bank confidence (oh yes and a few bank failures to boot).
Well Congress has been miss-behaving for years, more so lately with the blatant lack of any responsibility to the country to govern using our two party system. This no compromise on ultra right wing principles has left the country legislatively leaderless. It is remarkable that Obama has been able to get any good legislation through.
The "Left Wing Media" is a myth. It is really corporate media controlled by about 5 companies and they have stopped doing journalism and they filter on conservative ideology and sensationalism as exampled by the almost total lack of coverage of the tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens that were protesting Scott Walker initially. Many news casts ignored that rather large and important news story, which was unprecedented in recent years. But the right wing keeps crying "Left Wing Media", "Left Wing Media". They would probably accuse Regan of being "Left Wing" as well. Its all
Thank God we generally succumb to our evolved urges whether in culturally acceptable ways or other ways, but it is troubling that some populations are starting to dwindle, although that is best for the planet, but can be problematic for the vote. I didn't quite get the "use of sex as a weapon of population mind control" I can see the mind control as a way for the Roman Catholic Church keeping their Churches filled and their power base intact, but the "population mind control" has me stumped.
Sorry I'm confused. If you look at entertainment, and divorce rate, and the adult industry, they are billion if not trillions of dollars. The hypocrisy is the public face that people try to maintain. I contend that the money speaks for itself and only a few people are wanting to be the arbiters of information, they are vocal and use public shame and guilt to try and impress their standards. They are so off base as to be caricatures of old Puritan ethics that we in the world have been trying to shed for hundreds of years. (at least most of us).
Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive. Like with burning of books, its only one segment that gets some little bit of power and impresses their will on others. I am reminded of the movie "The Name of the Rose" (1986) with Sean Connery, a good example of that type of twisted thinking and the lengths some will go to to make others do or not do, or not see, or not read, things they think are bad. In that case it was the logic of Aristotle if I remember because one monk thought it underminded the Church, throw in a little inquisition and some burnings of some people and you have a rollicking medival parable of what is going on today. Prudes to the back of the bus!
Those are Scholarship Programs...(Miss Congeniality (2000))!!!
Ahh Catch 22 all over again. This prudish anti-natural anti-sensual puritan ethic is what causes so much trouble in the world, not the least is the troubles from fights to wars caused by sexual repression exploding out in other area's of peoples lives. The assumptions of what is bad here (love as opposed to say war) should be what is being questioned. We are regressing to older times where old ladies with umbrellas would take after children who were holding hands in public. Lets not go there shall we?
It also does not mean you shouldn't know it either.
Give a republican party who's stated primary goal it to make Obama a one term president, and the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block any progress and judicial nominations, and handed a depression from the previous administration and the Tarp debt and the need for additional stimulus spending to stop the free falling economy, I would say Obama has done a wonderful job and actually got some legislation passed that will do good. The auto industry was saved with all those jobs, pre-existing conditions are starting to be covered, many millions of people can now get coverage that they could not before. It is a start. It used to be that the Insurance companies could cherry pick their clients, and if you suddenly had a medical expense, find all possible ways to deny coverage, just to make a buck.
Health care and hospitals should not be for profit. It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive, that and the fact that so many people are outside the system but we have to (and should) give them care when needed. (It's the Christian thing to do).
One company that was given load guarantee's ( I don't think Solyndra got money, just loan guarantees) is one of a number of companies that are being supported towards that goal of energy independence. A worthy goal. If you think all businesses have to survive, your not living in the real world, this is just used as a right wing talking point to try to achieve that primary goal (listed above).
The idea that government picks winners is bogus. The winners or shall I say whiners are the ones benefiting from the governments support of oil and agriculture. You don't think banks with loans or private capital groups don't do the exact same thing?
And if you think SS is a ponzy scheme, you proably think your money is really in the bank too.
Wake up and vote your own best interests.
"And they very well may make a distinction between snatching a copy for yourself and depriving the original owner of the use of their property." interesting statement. I don't know but the code may have been written by the fellow which muddies the water about the intent of the IP laws and companies being able to get you to sign over any of your IP to them. The copyright law is and has been to allow the intellectual creator a period of time to benefit from their IP, not it has been turned into a commodity that can be bought and sold by people who are not the creators. I think the laws should be re-written so that the original creators always hold the rights (for the time period) but can allow say an employer free licensing (but not exclusive) use of the IP. That would dramatically change the business model and probably properly compensate the true creators of such works. The executives that clip the coupons of IP would have to pay for that privilege.
Well your absolutely right about that, but maybe not, they did even in Columbus's day believe that you could sail off then end of the ocean. You are talking about the scientific intelligentsia that did not believe the earth was flat, but just talk to any sailor at the time.
But Galileo was persecuted for his theory of heliocentrism "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[9][10] " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei) much like what we see today with the Theory of Evolution being supported as possibility and not established fact by the Creationists. Seems like the same song with the global warming.
The Wiki also talks about
"Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) may have argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[77] Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote that the Earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[78] The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans."
Which places Christian Theologians basing Flat Earth on scripture as late as 547
"Bishop Isidore of Seville (560 – 636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, the Etymologies diverse views such as that the Earth "resembles a wheel"[86] resembling Anaximander in language and the map that he provided. This was widely interpreted as referring to a flat disc-shaped Earth.[87][88]"
or
"St Vergilius of Salzburg (c.700 – 784), in the middle of the eighth century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas which St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary's reply, dated 748, where he wrote:
"As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."[101]"
which places ideas of Flat Earth taught by members of the Church at the time of Popes.
"However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos."
Which says that the representation of Earth as an orb in Europe became known at the time of Columbus.
"However Tattersall shows that in many vernacular works in 12th and 13th century French texts the Earth was considered "round like a table" rather than "round like an apple". "In virtually all the examples quoted...from epics and from non-'historical' romances (that is, works of a less learned character) the actual form of words used suggests strongly a circle rather than a sphere.[113]
Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth."
Which seems to indicate that those voyages were the proof that the theory was correct. Up until then what the people in general believed was probably a mixture and probably more a feeling that Earth was a circle for most of that time.
Sorry I always confuse the copyright and patent times, it appears to be 20 years from earliest claimed filing date, and filed before 1995 17 years from issue or 20 years from earliest claimed domestic priority date, the longer term applying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law)
So for more recent patents, its 20 years or 57% of what I said. I am not against patents or copyright. Copyright for up to 120 years for regurlar works
that is 70 years after the death of the author or 120 years after creation if work for hire or 95 years after publication whichever is shorter.
We have Sonny Bono to thank for that monstrosity, all to keep Disney's Steamboat Willy steaming along with profits.
But in terms of Patents, am I wrong that a patent can be renewed multiple times with minor changes to extend the protection of a patent?
Certainly the Copyright laws are counter productive (literally). The Patent law with renewals the same. Lets not talk about software patents.