IANAL but that seems to fail to name witnesses and defendents.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(ii) any government personnelâ"including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign governmentâ"that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or
The chances of you killing someone because you've had a late night and your attention drifts while you're on your way to work are quite high in comparison to the chances of a team of assasins coming after you while you're sitting in traffic.
Hell the chances of you having a psychotic break and merely *believing* that's happening are probably higher than the chances of it actually happening.
The chances of someone you're with going into cardiac arrest or similar while you're not so far away from a hospital that it makes not difference anyway but not so close that you can get there on time anyway are stunningly small and even if that happened don't forget that you very well might kill a few bystanders while playing at being a rally driver on your way.
and it would be surprising if such a system enforced speed limits.
yes we can come up with insane scenarios, "if ninjas appeared right then" or "what if an attack chopper came after me just as I was about to..."
but they're not likely. most deaths on the road are due to mundane causes like people not paying attention or daydreaming about terrorist attacks and how they'd escape.
Though most don't provide anything like as many copies as a store.
the problem is that the logic they follow isn't that you're responsible for the dozen or so copies people download from you but also for every download that every person makes from each of those dozen people and for each of the people who download from from each of those and for each of the people who download from each of those.
As it were, if you throw a rock and break a window you aren't liable for the actions of the 10000 other people who walk past, see 1 or more broken windows and throw a rock themselves.
to be more exact: it's a similar setup. the companies have to have a minimum level of insurance in the 10's of billion range but beyond that since few insurance companies have deep enough pockets to cover much more than that the government acts as the insurer of last resort.
they can't, that's the point. So anon comments will effectively be banned.
since verifying the person is who they say they are is prohibitively hard it'll also do away with user generated content and we can go back to the way things were in the good old days with massive media companies telling us what to think without every tom dick and harry giving their opinion.
You're still combining the worst possible elements of the current system with the worst elements of your own.
Your proposed system has no advantages over the current copyright system while in many ways being vastly worse.
Now any musicians have to handle manufacturing disks and distributing them. way to step back half a century and game makers have to do the same.
It's lovely that you think only the platforms you like should have copyright protection but you've given no reasons. you just keep making your proposal worse and worse.
So, musicians who distribute their music only over the net or game makers who sell only through steam or similar services, bypassing traditional middlemen are out in the cold and don't get copyright protection while big old companies who sell physical media get copyright protection?
that's possibly the worst possible combination.
You'd have to go through a big company like disney to publish, they'd also want a cut of the digital sales and they can just keep an archive of small numbers of print on demand copies "on sale" for all eternity.
and so 10,000 years after the first showing of Steamboat Willie a lightening storm finally knocked out all of disneys servers at once and mickey finall entered the public domain.
disney had been listing digital copies for the very reasonable price of 1000 times the average anual wage per copy.
with digital distribution and no upper ceiling on price that effectively means eternal copyright since companies can keep everything they've ever made "on sale" for a price better compared to the GDP of small countries.
I dunno. Back in college I used to write code which did a task and also had some form of back door. I'd then challenge my friends to find it.
rarely could they find it even in reasonably minor applications or scripts.of course better coders would be better at finding them but better coders would also be better at hiding them.
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Hopefully given the relatively precise structure of legal documents we'll one day have really good expert systems to help simplify things from the lay persons point of view.
The thing you don't seem to get is that there's a massive difference between atomic mercury and compounds of mercury.
It's as big as the difference between chlorine(Cl), so toxic that it was used as a chemical weapon in war and compounds of chlorine which make fish and chips tasty (NaCl).
We know chlorine is dangerous, that doesn't make table NaCl dangerous.
We know mercury is dangerous, that doesn't make all compounds of mercury dangerous.
you're following the lead of the tabloid newspapers rather than rationality.
It also doesn't mean you just do whatever you want. There's a whole host of anti-competitive trading practices which can have a negative impact on the market as a whole.
It could fall under the heading of anti-competitive practices if it's part of a setup to allow price fixing or if you refuse to deal with a vendor in an attempt to reduce competition in the marketplace or if it involves as can sometimes be the case, dividing territories where you keep out of an area because of a deal with a local company in exchange for them not moving on your market.
Because it often involves price discrimination, restrictions on free trade or trying to prevent your customers from re-selling their property which is detrimental to a free market.
Studies which fail to find any evidence of unicorns don't mean that unicorns don't exist, just that the studies can't find them.
when it's so trivial to test: place subject in a shielded room with a wifi router or 10 hidden from view.
tell subject to press a button when they believe they are feeling the effects of their wifi sensitivity.
double blind it by turning it on and off with a random number generator and when you're done compare when it was actually on with when they believed it was on and do the stats.
We went through this before. long ago. again and again and again. europe is no better.
you even eventually provided an actual document(in german) which you insisted supported your claims which actually just listed the vast quantities of arsenic,NOx etc which the plant released into the air.
we also established that in reality the US plants were actually cleaner and are held to a higher standard by regulatory bodies than the lovely german plant you gave documentation for.
but you apparently either live in a fantasy world or work for a coal plant PR department.
Slashdot Mirror
That plan would probably turn out a little like this.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1366
I pasted that badly:
the section starting "Unless these rules provide otherwise" is
6(e)(2)(B)
the section starting "any government personnel" is 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii)
IANAL but that seems to fail to name witnesses and defendents.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(ii) any government personnelâ"including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign governmentâ"that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or
(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. Â3322.
is he fall into any of those catagories?
It comes down to likely scenarios vs unlikely.
The chances of you killing someone because you've had a late night and your attention drifts while you're on your way to work are quite high in comparison to the chances of a team of assasins coming after you while you're sitting in traffic.
Hell the chances of you having a psychotic break and merely *believing* that's happening are probably higher than the chances of it actually happening.
The chances of someone you're with going into cardiac arrest or similar while you're not so far away from a hospital that it makes not difference anyway but not so close that you can get there on time anyway are stunningly small and even if that happened don't forget that you very well might kill a few bystanders while playing at being a rally driver on your way.
and it would be surprising if such a system enforced speed limits.
yes we can come up with insane scenarios, "if ninjas appeared right then" or "what if an attack chopper came after me just as I was about to..."
but they're not likely. most deaths on the road are due to mundane causes like people not paying attention or daydreaming about terrorist attacks and how they'd escape.
option 2: phone malware picks up your details the next time you use the app.
option 3: pre installed networkcrapware like this
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/01/technology/carrier_iq/index.htm destroys any semblance of security.
Though most don't provide anything like as many copies as a store.
the problem is that the logic they follow isn't that you're responsible for the dozen or so copies people download from you but also for every download that every person makes from each of those dozen people and for each of the people who download from from each of those and for each of the people who download from each of those.
As it were, if you throw a rock and break a window you aren't liable for the actions of the 10000 other people who walk past, see 1 or more broken windows and throw a rock themselves.
to be more exact: it's a similar setup. the companies have to have a minimum level of insurance in the 10's of billion range but beyond that since few insurance companies have deep enough pockets to cover much more than that the government acts as the insurer of last resort.
they can't, that's the point. So anon comments will effectively be banned.
since verifying the person is who they say they are is prohibitively hard it'll also do away with user generated content and we can go back to the way things were in the good old days with massive media companies telling us what to think without every tom dick and harry giving their opinion.
though 256, just to be sure, is probably a good idea for anything really important long term.
cryptographers do, after all, find ways to reduce the cost of attacking particular encrption methods occasionally.
and these truths were?
that's *already the case*.
large companies already copycat small time inventors, never paying them.
Almost all companies *already* use closed source, black-box implementations.
patents for everyone.... everyone with a patent and legal budget, that is.
The software industry is the wrong kind of industry for patents.
You're still combining the worst possible elements of the current system with the worst elements of your own.
Your proposed system has no advantages over the current copyright system while in many ways being vastly worse.
Now any musicians have to handle manufacturing disks and distributing them. way to step back half a century and game makers have to do the same.
It's lovely that you think only the platforms you like should have copyright protection but you've given no reasons. you just keep making your proposal worse and worse.
So, musicians who distribute their music only over the net or game makers who sell only through steam or similar services, bypassing traditional middlemen are out in the cold and don't get copyright protection while big old companies who sell physical media get copyright protection?
that's possibly the worst possible combination.
You'd have to go through a big company like disney to publish, they'd also want a cut of the digital sales and they can just keep an archive of small numbers of print on demand copies "on sale" for all eternity.
Copyright is *all about* non-physical things.
and so 10,000 years after the first showing of Steamboat Willie a lightening storm finally knocked out all of disneys servers at once and mickey finall entered the public domain.
disney had been listing digital copies for the very reasonable price of 1000 times the average anual wage per copy.
with digital distribution and no upper ceiling on price that effectively means eternal copyright since companies can keep everything they've ever made "on sale" for a price better compared to the GDP of small countries.
I dunno. Back in college I used to write code which did a task and also had some form of back door. I'd then challenge my friends to find it.
rarely could they find it even in reasonably minor applications or scripts.of course better coders would be better at finding them but better coders would also be better at hiding them.
He was referencing the books ending.
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Hopefully given the relatively precise structure of legal documents we'll one day have really good expert systems to help simplify things from the lay persons point of view.
LED's? you mean those things which are made with lead and arsenic?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210124136.htm
The thing you don't seem to get is that there's a massive difference between atomic mercury and compounds of mercury.
It's as big as the difference between chlorine(Cl), so toxic that it was used as a chemical weapon in war and compounds of chlorine which make fish and chips tasty (NaCl).
We know chlorine is dangerous, that doesn't make table NaCl dangerous.
We know mercury is dangerous, that doesn't make all compounds of mercury dangerous.
you're following the lead of the tabloid newspapers rather than rationality.
It also doesn't mean you just do whatever you want. There's a whole host of anti-competitive trading practices which can have a negative impact on the market as a whole.
Depends how you use it and what you use it for.
It could fall under the heading of anti-competitive practices if it's part of a setup to allow price fixing or if you refuse to deal with a vendor in an attempt to reduce competition in the marketplace or if it involves as can sometimes be the case, dividing territories where you keep out of an area because of a deal with a local company in exchange for them not moving on your market.
Because it often involves price discrimination, restrictions on free trade or trying to prevent your customers from re-selling their property which is detrimental to a free market.
Studies which fail to find any evidence of unicorns don't mean that unicorns don't exist, just that the studies can't find them.
when it's so trivial to test: place subject in a shielded room with a wifi router or 10 hidden from view.
tell subject to press a button when they believe they are feeling the effects of their wifi sensitivity.
double blind it by turning it on and off with a random number generator and when you're done compare when it was actually on with when they believed it was on and do the stats.
You seem to have a mental block against basic common sense.
I'll try to use small words.
lets say you need 10 terawats.
Lets imagine that you have 2 options.
1: a big plant running on X.
You need to employ a total of 100 people to mine, process and use X.
2: a big plant powered by 1,000,000 people on exercise bikes.
In the course of this 1 of the people dealing with X dies.
Meanwhile 1000 of the cyclers die of exhaustion.
We get the *exact same product either way* 10 terrawatts.
It doesn't matter that each employee had the same chance of dying on the job.
the product cost more blood and lives to do the stupid way.
Let me repeat that: you get the exact same product whichever way you do it but it kills more people to do it the stupid way.
employing more people along the way to achieve the same result just means inefficiency and hurts everyone all across society.
We went through this before. long ago. again and again and again. europe is no better.
you even eventually provided an actual document(in german) which you insisted supported your claims which actually just listed the vast quantities of arsenic,NOx etc which the plant released into the air.
we also established that in reality the US plants were actually cleaner and are held to a higher standard by regulatory bodies than the lovely german plant you gave documentation for.
but you apparently either live in a fantasy world or work for a coal plant PR department.