However, my background check now shows my ID as having been part of an investigation into a child sex crime, because technically it was- the investigation revealed that there was not actually a crime. But you won't see this on the background check, what you'll see is just the flag showing the investigation.
If we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, why is the government providing such one-sided background checks?
Um.. did it ever cross you mind that the weathy has a responsibility to ensure that the society which is has benifitted from immensely is sustained?
- what crossed my mind is that this is exactly the kind of thought process that destroys the society by taking away people's individual rights and killing off the economy.
It seems to me the GP just described an aspect of what in medieval times was called "noblesse oblige", or in its modern form "with great power comes great responsibility", and you just said to hell with that. Did I misunderstand?
Yeah, the Greens can be a mixed bag, but aren't they all? I also notice in your link that while #17 is to close that reactor, #16 is to promote an alternative method of getting those medical isotopes. I daresay the former isn't going to happen until the latter does.
Re nukes, while I disagree with any policy that wants to ban nuclear reactors outright (they are still important research and medical tools), as far as commercially-operated nuclear fission reactors go I no longer want them. It boils down to this approximation:
Technology (Fission Reactors) + Species (Humanity) + Dominant Motive (Profit) = Trouble (With a Chance of Nocturnal Luminescence).
Or more simply put: we can't be trusted with nuke plants in a commercial setting.
Like the GP, I'd be seriously, genuinely interested in a workable solution, but it seems like that old internet meme: "Your idea to get rid of spam is technically sound, but will not work because: [X] Humans are involved." Maybe if plant management was under the code of military justice rather than civilian law? People might think thrice about skimming the margins if they knew the result could be a firing squad instead of a golden parachute (but then again, maybe not; stupid people are stupid, and the military is not magically immune to corruption).
On the other hand, it's not as if "regulating interstate or foreign commerce" wasn't itself a loophole big enough for the federal government to drive a coup(e) through.
Okay, blowing moderation for this one. The *average* salary is not the *median* salary. Just because some folk are being paid silly amounts by the mining sector (or for that matter whichever sector is paying you "well over double" the average!), thus distorting the economy, doesn't mean the rest of us are remotely near easy street.
In Australia, many consider the stick to be the most important early invention. The stick allowed early Australians to achieve many great things, foremost of which was to explore Australia without being immediately killed by something large and carnivorous. Death instead took about five minutes due to being killed by something small and venomous, but at least that was usually long enough to (a) beat/stab it to death with your stick and/or (b) describe it to the rest of the tribe. Also, fire (by rubbing two sticks together).
Probably the most famous Australian advance in stick technology is the boomerang.
Some people will think I'm joking. I am being humorous, but I'm not joking. The Earth became a lot more pleasant for humans to live on once we discovered the stick.
It is however your problem, presuming you're a person of scruples living in the same economic system as those lenders unscrupulous enough to take those simpletons for a ride.
My theory? Because corporate sociopaths don't give a crap about national defence. They have no loyalty to king nor country, no sense of patriotism or empathy, and they've accumulated enough power from their corporate divide-and-plunder schemes that they have moved onto their inevitable target: the nations that birthed them.
Data-mining, open-cut style, benefits corporate profiteering more than anything else. Big business knows your teenage daughter is pregnant before you do (google: Target data mining babies). And I daresay it's a lot easier to fight a foreign terrorist than it is to tackle wealthy "pillars of the community" who have the ear (and dirty laundry) of your civilian leaders - if they're not part of the hierarchy themselves.
Am I a folklorist or ethicist? Perhaps today. The bad guy is obvious (to only one skilled in the art? I hope not). Because in both of your scenarios, The patent holder would be the bad guy; For suing - because he wants consideration without contribution. Yes, he did work, and should be compensated by those who use it. But in your scenarios, however, nobody used his work. They did their own work.
The root issue I have with patents - software or otherwise - is that anyone and everyone who independently arrives at the same solution are all screwed, solely because one entity has paid the government to prevent anyone else from using that solution without paying up.
It's a protection racket under colour of authority. "Pay me for having the same idea I had, or I'll send the boys^Wgovernment around to ruin you." That's the patent system. That's "gimme gimme gimme."
Until you change that fundamental aspect of the system, until patents allow for independent invention, that's the system you're defending.
As with Free Software, if you don't like it, go develop an alternative yourself, and release it for free. On2 & Google did exactly that.
And how far do you think On2/Google would've gotten if they hadn't had their own army of mercenaries^W laywers to deter the existing codec patent holders from attacking them?
Twitter's approach could make it *easier* to see what your government is censoring.
I can imagine a browser extension that shows you the "censored" tweets simply by clicking the "This tweet has been removed" text: the extension proxies through another country's service, and you see what your government didn't want you to see. You could even make it automatic.
If your video contains original work in addition to the licensed classical music, and the company that claims you are infringing proceeds to monetise your video, can you file a takedown notice against that company?
You also mention the problem of "other than firing off a lawsuit ($$$)". Perhaps the EFF or similar organisation might be interested?
Of course, that has the problem that only the incredibly rich will dare submit a takedown order, because for everyone else the first $100,000 fine will bankrupt them.
Unless you want to give the rich even more power, may I suggest starting at 0.1% of gross income instead? And before anyone thinks that's too small, don't forget it's a compounding escalation. Multiple infractions will add up fast....
Dear AC, whether or not we have souls, your statements assume we're people at conception because we have souls at conception because we're people at conception... you might want to examine the fallacy of Circular Reasoning.
The GP used the phrase "50-150 undifferentiated cells". Does that mean there are no brain cells? And if so, do you still claim this is a person (rather than a clump of biological matter with the potential to be a person if it can reach a womb, etc)?
Unless we're going to invoke "souls", my demarcation point between person and non-person would have to be some degree of brain structure/activity (exactly what degree is a whole other ball of squick).
"But it would be best to have a fine-tuned system that actually encouraged invention, instead of stifling it."
The trouble with any finely-tuned system is that it all goes to hell when you introduce humans. Whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks, regulations, taxes - any legislation, really - the more complexity you add to cover all of the little loopholes in your system, the more you create opportunities for those with the resources to exploit the permutations and game the system. The result of this singular meta-loophole with its high barrier to entry is inevitably a stifled, discontent populace ruled by an at best ignorant, at worst sociopathic elite. Until the culture either comes to its senses, explodes, or suffocates.
People keep thinking we can have this perfect system of order. We can't. We're humanity. We're creatures of order AND chaos. We're fallible. We need those little holes to blow off steam, to regulate our culture like the pores in our skin do for our bodies. If we were really as intelligent as we like to believe, we'd be designing their number and placement for optimal flow, but we're just not that smart. Nowhere even remotely close to near that smart, not yet.
So that fine-tuned system you think we need is exactly the mess we're in right now. And we keep on fine-tuning it, with ever more and more draconian regulations and penalties, repeatedly covering up every damn little loophole that society keeps desperately trying to open so it can just damn breathe.
Slashdot Mirror
If the alien is made of antimatter, I suspect the problem will be discovered long before you get close enough to shake their hand. :p
If we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, why is the government providing such one-sided background checks?
If that was how it was compromised, still an epic fail for Hotmail not to have a defence against such an obvious attack method.
There is an old, old saying: know thine enemy.
The USA seems hell-bent on knowing everything about everyone.
"... is server-side determination of which other avatars a given player is allowed to see"
So basically they're patenting algorithms?
Would be nicer, yes. But until then, at least this time the scientists who did the work will get paid for it.
Wouldn't that make all rules of law unjust and immoral?
Um.. did it ever cross you mind that the weathy has a responsibility to ensure that the society which is has benifitted from immensely is sustained?
- what crossed my mind is that this is exactly the kind of thought process that destroys the society by taking away people's individual rights and killing off the economy.
It seems to me the GP just described an aspect of what in medieval times was called "noblesse oblige", or in its modern form "with great power comes great responsibility", and you just said to hell with that. Did I misunderstand?
Yeah, the Greens can be a mixed bag, but aren't they all? I also notice in your link that while #17 is to close that reactor, #16 is to promote an alternative method of getting those medical isotopes. I daresay the former isn't going to happen until the latter does.
Re nukes, while I disagree with any policy that wants to ban nuclear reactors outright (they are still important research and medical tools), as far as commercially-operated nuclear fission reactors go I no longer want them. It boils down to this approximation:
Technology (Fission Reactors) + Species (Humanity) + Dominant Motive (Profit) = Trouble (With a Chance of Nocturnal Luminescence).
Or more simply put: we can't be trusted with nuke plants in a commercial setting.
Like the GP, I'd be seriously, genuinely interested in a workable solution, but it seems like that old internet meme: "Your idea to get rid of spam is technically sound, but will not work because: [X] Humans are involved." Maybe if plant management was under the code of military justice rather than civilian law? People might think thrice about skimming the margins if they knew the result could be a firing squad instead of a golden parachute (but then again, maybe not; stupid people are stupid, and the military is not magically immune to corruption).
On the other hand, it's not as if "regulating interstate or foreign commerce" wasn't itself a loophole big enough for the federal government to drive a coup(e) through.
Which is easier? To make $10,000,001 with $1, or $20,000,001 with $10,000,001?
The saying "there but for the grace of god go I" works in more than just the one direction.
Okay, blowing moderation for this one. The *average* salary is not the *median* salary. Just because some folk are being paid silly amounts by the mining sector (or for that matter whichever sector is paying you "well over double" the average!), thus distorting the economy, doesn't mean the rest of us are remotely near easy street.
TLDR: $100 is not significant to YOU.
Bloody hell. Illegal glassware. Let me know when Texas criminalizes the possession of silicon dioxide.
In Australia, many consider the stick to be the most important early invention. The stick allowed early Australians to achieve many great things, foremost of which was to explore Australia without being immediately killed by something large and carnivorous. Death instead took about five minutes due to being killed by something small and venomous, but at least that was usually long enough to (a) beat/stab it to death with your stick and/or (b) describe it to the rest of the tribe. Also, fire (by rubbing two sticks together).
Probably the most famous Australian advance in stick technology is the boomerang.
Some people will think I'm joking. I am being humorous, but I'm not joking. The Earth became a lot more pleasant for humans to live on once we discovered the stick.
It is however your problem, presuming you're a person of scruples living in the same economic system as those lenders unscrupulous enough to take those simpletons for a ride.
My theory? Because corporate sociopaths don't give a crap about national defence. They have no loyalty to king nor country, no sense of patriotism or empathy, and they've accumulated enough power from their corporate divide-and-plunder schemes that they have moved onto their inevitable target: the nations that birthed them.
Data-mining, open-cut style, benefits corporate profiteering more than anything else. Big business knows your teenage daughter is pregnant before you do (google: Target data mining babies). And I daresay it's a lot easier to fight a foreign terrorist than it is to tackle wealthy "pillars of the community" who have the ear (and dirty laundry) of your civilian leaders - if they're not part of the hierarchy themselves.
Am I a folklorist or ethicist? Perhaps today.
The bad guy is obvious (to only one skilled in the art? I hope not).
Because in both of your scenarios,
The patent holder would be the bad guy;
For suing - because he wants consideration without contribution.
Yes, he did work, and should be compensated by those who use it.
But in your scenarios, however, nobody used his work.
They did their own work.
It's Murdoch with a 'ch', not Murdock with a 'ck'. The latter makes me think of the guy from the A-Team. :)
The root issue I have with patents - software or otherwise - is that anyone and everyone who independently arrives at the same solution are all screwed, solely because one entity has paid the government to prevent anyone else from using that solution without paying up.
It's a protection racket under colour of authority. "Pay me for having the same idea I had, or I'll send the boys^Wgovernment around to ruin you." That's the patent system. That's "gimme gimme gimme."
Until you change that fundamental aspect of the system, until patents allow for independent invention, that's the system you're defending.
And how far do you think On2/Google would've gotten if they hadn't had their own army of mercenaries^W laywers to deter the existing codec patent holders from attacking them?
Twitter's approach could make it *easier* to see what your government is censoring.
I can imagine a browser extension that shows you the "censored" tweets simply by clicking the "This tweet has been removed" text: the extension proxies through another country's service, and you see what your government didn't want you to see. You could even make it automatic.
If your video contains original work in addition to the licensed classical music, and the company that claims you are infringing proceeds to monetise your video, can you file a takedown notice against that company?
You also mention the problem of "other than firing off a lawsuit ($$$)". Perhaps the EFF or similar organisation might be interested?
Of course, that has the problem that only the incredibly rich will dare submit a takedown order, because for everyone else the first $100,000 fine will bankrupt them.
Unless you want to give the rich even more power, may I suggest starting at 0.1% of gross income instead? And before anyone thinks that's too small, don't forget it's a compounding escalation. Multiple infractions will add up fast....
Dear AC, whether or not we have souls, your statements assume we're people at conception because we have souls at conception because we're people at conception... you might want to examine the fallacy of Circular Reasoning.
The GP used the phrase "50-150 undifferentiated cells". Does that mean there are no brain cells? And if so, do you still claim this is a person (rather than a clump of biological matter with the potential to be a person if it can reach a womb, etc)?
Unless we're going to invoke "souls", my demarcation point between person and non-person would have to be some degree of brain structure/activity (exactly what degree is a whole other ball of squick).
The trouble with any finely-tuned system is that it all goes to hell when you introduce humans. Whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks, regulations, taxes - any legislation, really - the more complexity you add to cover all of the little loopholes in your system, the more you create opportunities for those with the resources to exploit the permutations and game the system. The result of this singular meta-loophole with its high barrier to entry is inevitably a stifled, discontent populace ruled by an at best ignorant, at worst sociopathic elite. Until the culture either comes to its senses, explodes, or suffocates.
People keep thinking we can have this perfect system of order. We can't. We're humanity. We're creatures of order AND chaos. We're fallible. We need those little holes to blow off steam, to regulate our culture like the pores in our skin do for our bodies. If we were really as intelligent as we like to believe, we'd be designing their number and placement for optimal flow, but we're just not that smart. Nowhere even remotely close to near that smart, not yet.
So that fine-tuned system you think we need is exactly the mess we're in right now. And we keep on fine-tuning it, with ever more and more draconian regulations and penalties, repeatedly covering up every damn little loophole that society keeps desperately trying to open so it can just damn breathe.
What do you think is going to happen next?