For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
while this statement maybe correct i fail to see how it applies. So he's using concepts from separate time periods. As long as the concepts are being applied appropriately i fail to see the problem
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Copyright aims to control, for a duration that for a single generation might as well be permanent, the spread of all ideas including new ones . Censorship is just a bit more extreme in that when it tries to exert control over an idea it tries to squash it entirely, instead of controlling it. And Censorship has no issue going after old ideas, thats why so many christian holidays were basically written over older pagan holidays.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
And of course now its getting harder and harder to create because you might step on someones ancient copyright and be hugely liable.
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
Yes but unlike copyrights i will see children grow up in my lifetime, or at least my son will. My son probably won't see the recently deceased Michael Jacksons works in public domain in his lifetime. He probably won't even know who he is beyond some vague zamani-ish concept. But his works will be protected.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Well if its a nicely designed house it will raise both property values by improving the neighborhood. Weird how when we share everyone can benefit sometimes.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group
Having not read the full bill i might be missing other tax increases but if that doctor is getting his taxes increased by 100,000$ by a 1% increase i think he'll be okay.
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up? What exactly are you asking about? Im confused
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015
*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
The wealthy will always be treated better. That just the way things work. Will everyone recieve the care they need? Probably, it just might not be as cushy.
do you know how your computer works? Do really understand?
nope.
Partly because some of how it works is a corporate secret. Largely because you don't need to.
But that doesn't make you low tech.
Sure some mysterious unknown virus. Or Someone broke/deleted something and didn't know how to fix it. I mean would you want to tell the FBI you broke their computers?
Copyright laws aren't just sorta flawed, needs some kinks worked out. Copyrights last for generations. Plural. And if these laws are really to protect the creator, why is it that the creator of an actual item only deserves to have their rights protected for 20 years but if someone creates and idea they get protection for their entire life time plus seventy years (as in their childrens life time as well)?
So the chinese are just plain evil? All of em. Like getting "no color footage from them because their so evil the have no color" evil? I would think they've gotta be at least alittle good
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
I would say yeah because either people died just because nazi are evil, or because nazi's are evil and providing the world with information that could save others.
I thought one potential source of embryonic stem cells were unfertilized embryos... That kinda avoids the whole abortion thing.
And I'm not sure my opinion would change if I were sick with something that might be cured with that research. Because I could just as easily die from something else that could not. Or something I or my doctor missed.
You know you could also be struck and killed by a meteor. You wouldn't even have to get out of bed. Sorry i like "coulda" logic like that. Its usually got holes in it.
Yes but how much would these have provided? I doubt Private companies would invest much without some sign of short term return. I have no idea what kind of budget states allot for research, but i'm pretty sure federal funding would be bigger.
Yes only federal funding was banned, but i'm willing to bet not too many states and no private companies are willing to fund something which doesn't guarantee a result/product soon. Basic foundation research is usually federally funded i thought. Though finding actual numbers to back that is a bit difficult
So because they did something poorly and someone found out and pointed it out, its the other persons fault and not the ones who implemented the thing poorly?
And for your shed analogy the response to the accusation is easy. The stranger saw it from somewhere off your property.
Aren't there legal security requirements for storing this kind of information anyway?
And why in the hell does the article ask a state trooper about his opinion of the situation... Maybe im missing his connection or relevance to the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
while this statement maybe correct i fail to see how it applies. So he's using concepts from separate time periods. As long as the concepts are being applied appropriately i fail to see the problem
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Copyright aims to control, for a duration that for a single generation might as well be permanent, the spread of all ideas including new ones . Censorship is just a bit more extreme in that when it tries to exert control over an idea it tries to squash it entirely, instead of controlling it. And Censorship has no issue going after old ideas, thats why so many christian holidays were basically written over older pagan holidays.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
And of course now its getting harder and harder to create because you might step on someones ancient copyright and be hugely liable.
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
Yes but unlike copyrights i will see children grow up in my lifetime, or at least my son will. My son probably won't see the recently deceased Michael Jacksons works in public domain in his lifetime. He probably won't even know who he is beyond some vague zamani-ish concept. But his works will be protected.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Well if its a nicely designed house it will raise both property values by improving the neighborhood. Weird how when we share everyone can benefit sometimes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group
Having not read the full bill i might be missing other tax increases but if that doctor is getting his taxes increased by 100,000$ by a 1% increase i think he'll be okay.
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up? What exactly are you asking about? Im confused
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
A large chunk of the legislation is to restrict what health insurance companies can do. To specifically address that i'll quote the reuters article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015
*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
The wealthy will always be treated better. That just the way things work. Will everyone recieve the care they need? Probably, it just might not be as cushy.
do you know how your computer works? Do really understand?
nope.
Partly because some of how it works is a corporate secret. Largely because you don't need to.
But that doesn't make you low tech.
Well of course they're identical. Otherwise we'd just end up flying in circles. it like two left feet.
Duh.
I saw a demonstration of this from MIT students. I'm pretty sure sony bought it, not developed.
Video
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html
Site
http://www.witricity.com/
they do offer voip over their fios service. i know i fixed them for a while.
Sure some mysterious unknown virus. Or Someone broke/deleted something and didn't know how to fix it. I mean would you want to tell the FBI you broke their computers?
Well usually you buy them a drink first.
But he is working pro bono...
Copyright laws aren't just sorta flawed, needs some kinks worked out. Copyrights last for generations. Plural. And if these laws are really to protect the creator, why is it that the creator of an actual item only deserves to have their rights protected for 20 years but if someone creates and idea they get protection for their entire life time plus seventy years (as in their childrens life time as well)?
What about copyrighted material broadcast on the radio and youtube. I know i wouldn't pay for all the "stuff" i see and hear. Would you?
I thought they already moved servers to the netherlands anyway. What would they be seizing?
So the chinese are just plain evil? All of em. Like getting "no color footage from them because their so evil the have no color" evil? I would think they've gotta be at least alittle good
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
I would say yeah because either people died just because nazi are evil, or because nazi's are evil and providing the world with information that could save others.
And I'm not sure my opinion would change if I were sick with something that might be cured with that research. Because I could just as easily die from something else that could not. Or something I or my doctor missed.
You know you could also be struck and killed by a meteor. You wouldn't even have to get out of bed. Sorry i like "coulda" logic like that. Its usually got holes in it.
So wait the one that got federal funding got results and the one that didn't... didn't...
?
Yeah but thats kinda the point. There are ACS treatments, but no ECS treatments. One got federal funds, the other didn't.
Yes but how much would these have provided? I doubt Private companies would invest much without some sign of short term return. I have no idea what kind of budget states allot for research, but i'm pretty sure federal funding would be bigger.
so the ones that were federally funded are already ready and done, but the ones that weren't took a lot longer...
Which side are you arguing?
Yes only federal funding was banned, but i'm willing to bet not too many states and no private companies are willing to fund something which doesn't guarantee a result/product soon. Basic foundation research is usually federally funded i thought. Though finding actual numbers to back that is a bit difficult
It will facilitate the storage of human umbilical cord blood stem cells, placenta stem cells, amniotic membrane stem cells, bone marrow stem cells,
I'm pretty sure adults don't usually have umbilical cords and placentas. I don't think its as simple as embryonic or adult.
Potato, Scuba diving, and Pumas
See! I can do it too!
Its falling with style dammit, get it right.
why are we inserting animals into mammoths?
So because they did something poorly and someone found out and pointed it out, its the other persons fault and not the ones who implemented the thing poorly?
And for your shed analogy the response to the accusation is easy. The stranger saw it from somewhere off your property.
Aren't there legal security requirements for storing this kind of information anyway?
And why in the hell does the article ask a state trooper about his opinion of the situation...
Maybe im missing his connection or relevance to the situation.