This 'system' of vouchers is what the US will not buy into... as it leaves us at an automatic pollution deficit with nery little hope of ever catching up.
It was the bloody USA that demanded that emissions trading be included in the protocol!!! All European nations were completely opposed to the idea but finally gave in to American demands so that a meaningful treaty could come in to effect.
IMHO the only scary aspect of it all is if law enforcement goes 1984 on us and the FBI decides to arrest 99% of the population for every single trivial criminal act they ever commit or something like that.
No. The problem occurs when they do not arrest everyone for all the trivial crimes that they commit. This is the path to selective enforcement of the law. If everyone is guilty of something, THEY can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want. Political protest will be that much harder. Free speech will only be free if it doesn't embarrass the establishment. THAT is scary.
who gives a shit if somebody posts a photo of your ass to the internet! Unless it is accompanied by your name etc., you can always claim it isn't you.
Ah, so you haven't heard about DavidBlunkett's new all-over-body barcode tattoo scheme yet? Apparently it will stop terrorists, reduce illegal immigration, reduce benefit fraud and mean that all children can have a kitten, puppy or pony. Or something like that.
n 1: a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation
There are many good arguments against pharmaceutical companies holding patents (e.g. the fact that they then prevent generic drugs from being used to save lives in the third world). I don't think that your argument is one of them, however. A group of chemists (working for the company) devise a set of experiments which they then perform over many years at the expense of the company. When an experiment strikes it lucky, it does not make sense to award a patent to that lucky individual. The individual is (financially) rewarded for their discovery through their salary. The patent system rewards the company, without whom the research may* not have happened.
*actually, if we funded universities to undertake the research rather than paying high prices to big business, we would probably advance medical research signicantly, but that is not really a patent issue.
Denmark does this... well, I think it's Denmark. Loser of the lawsuit pays everyone's lawyers fees. It might only be for person-to-person suits though I don't remember.
This is one area where the English legal system actually seems to work properly. It is up to the judge to decide. Therefore, s/he can force the loser to pay if they have launched an unreasonable claim against someone else, but can also ensure that individuals don't have to pay the costs of taking on corporations.
The FSF no doubt already has one of the largest intellectual property portfolios on earth. What would happen if the open source community, arguably the largest organized creative community in the world, started patenting everything they could and then licensing it in a manner designed to encourage openess and protect the community from external ip threats?
Nice idea, but I see a couple of problems. For a start, it costs a lot of money to get patents. Who will pay for that? Secondly, how would you enforce an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" policy? Companies could easily set up subsidiaries with few worthwhile patents to offer. These subsidiaries would then be able to get access to the free patent portfolio without giving up the parent companies'. Software patents are a dirty business. We are better off fighting the principle and getting legislation to prevent them than trying to fight on big business' terms.
Pharmaceutical companies are probably a good counter-example to that argument. In their case, I think it is clear that the innovation comes from the labs and not individuals. They test enormous numbers of drugs in the hope of finding one that works.
Except for the f-16 fighter jet. Lots of people have seen it, yet only the US can make it. Also, patents don't mean shit to the chinese air force, so it's not like patents are protecting the design of the F-16.
Actually, the F16 is also produced by Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and South Korea (article).
It is fairly common for aircraft to be produced under license. Other examples are the T-45 Goshawk and AV-8B Harrier II which Boeing produce under license from BAE SYSTEMS (formerly British Aerospace).
Correct. Copyright infringement occurs when one makes an unauthorised copy of a work. Theft occurs when you take the item away from its rightful owner. In the first case, the rightful owner still has the work and can continue to use it. In the second case, the rightful owner has been denied the use of their property.
Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. Most people would probably agree that copyright infringement is wrong - but not as wrong. Furthermore, it can be legitimately argued that copyright infringement is not morally wrong; there is a clear moral basis for denouncing theft but copyright is a much more artificial construct. Copyright infringement is certainly illegal, but it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it should not be.
Say there's a telco that uses Asterisk (or some similar software).
And let's suppose they distribute their products/boxes with just an OS that downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center when the owner boots the box.
Interesting idea, but futile, fortunately.
The "downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center" would be the distribution upon which the GPL relies. If a vendor provides you with a box and causes some software to be loaded on to the box (other than by telling you to get the software and load it yourself), then they must at some point distribute the code. Hence, the GPL applies.
As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.
I do not agree that the GPL is weakened if it is not enforced by everyone. The laws of copyright do not appear to have been weakened by widespread flouting of the law. Unlike trademarks which may lapse if not protected, authors still have the right to enforce their copyright (and hence the GPL) selectively, even if they choose not to.
When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget).
Perhaps Linux should sue them for libel (written) or slander (spoken). However, that costs money and takes considerable time and effort. Is it really worth it? SCO's lies will be laid bare when all of the lawsuits finish. If IBM/Novell/Redhat win, there will be no damage to Linus's reputation. If SCO win (as if!), then Linus would not win anyway. So what would be the point?
The US isn't perfect, but by and large, people are not actually losing sleep over the idea that it is seriously going to come after them. Even post-Iraq, which says to me most of the world practically acknowlegdes that was a criminal regime and therefore an exception, not a rule. Actions don't lie.
Weird logic you have there, my friend.
Nobody in Britain thinks that the US is going to come after us, but that doesn't stop most of us thinking that you have a lunatic in the top spot; it doesn't stop most of us from thinking that the invasion of Iraq was utterly unjustified; it doesn't stop us from thinking that the US will destabilise the world and make things more dangerous for everyone.
The self-righteousness that the current administration exhibits is dangerous and unjustified. The fact that it isn't insane enough to attack western Europe doesn't automatically mean that anyone it does attack must be a criminal. It just means that there is some inherent racism/religious bigotry in their choice of target. Unfortunately, the foreign policy of the neo-cons in Washington can be summed up in the same way as their domestic policy. Intolerance.
dirty bombs are only as dangerous as the initial explosion, the radioactivity is pathetically weak and no threat at all. The military have researched using them themselves and come to that conclusion.
The aims of the military setting off a dirty bomb would be very different to the aims of a terrorist. Using weak radiation against an enemy force equipped with NCB gear may not be very effective. Using such a device against a civilian population would be a different matter entirely.
Can you help me find a job in the Netherlands or Switzerland that pays well enough to live there?
Er, Switzerland isn't actually part of the EU. However, both Switzerland and the Netherlands do have plenty of excellent jobs with very good salaries -- as long as you have the necessary skills.
A plea from across the pond... Write in Tony Blair.
He is better than either Bush or Kerry. And we don't want him. Perfect solution all round.
Election monitors unable to do their job
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to the BBC, the row in Ohio about partisan election monitors is also preventing the independent international monitors from assessing the election:
Jonathan Paterson:: Colombus, Ohio:: 1727 GMT
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, for the first time in their history, have accepted an invitation to monitor the US presidential election. After the debacle of Florida in 2000 they decided to send monitors across the US to gauge the fairness of polling.
A representative in Colombus has complained that a legal dispute over who can be present in polling stations has prevented them from successfully monitoring the polling. "What kind of message does this send to countries like Azerbaijan if we can't even monitor an American polling booth", one monitor said.
Name the European country that consists of fifty-one separate soverign governments operating under separate and diverse legal systems, that collectively elects a national government.
Well, its not a single country and only consists of 25 separate soverign states, but the European Union does have a population larger than that of the United States. The legal systems of the EU are far more diverse than those of the US (England and Wales have a Common Law system, most of the other countries have a system based on Civil Law). It manages to elect a parliament without any fuss.
Actually, the government of any reasonable country shouldn't be able to dictate what vendor provides software (whether proprietary or F/OSS) because it is overstepping its bounds.... It should be up to the individual organizations (state/local governments and such) as to what they use. To me, they shouldn't be able to dictate Microsoft software or F/OSS or any OS either.
For a Brazilian local government to choose to use Microsoft products, they must obtain a license. That license costs money (and even if it doesn't, other organisations that need to work with the government will have to pay for licenses). That money goes straight out of the Brazilian economy and right into Billy G's coffers.
Why do you think that the national government should not be able to make strategic decisions to improve their economy?
Instead of spending tax-payers' money on software licenses, they can opt for free software and can spend that money on the things that actually improve the standard of living for their citizens. Which is what they are elected to do.
Oh yeah, I can just imagine the uproar when OJ bills the government for his legal defence.
If one is found not guilty in court, then one is innocent in the eyes of the law. What possible justification is there for an innocent person to be out of pocket when a department of the government has made a false (as determined by the court) accusation against that person?
These FUCKERS deserve everything they've got coming to them.
Spam is annoying, but they wouldn't continue unless some people actually made it worthwhile for them to do so. I really have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who is both stupid and greedy enough to fall for these scams. When people stop responding, the scams will stop.
We could of very easily just nuked Baghdad, Fallujah, and any other town that offered resistance. Instead we're sacrificing the lives of our soldiers to prevent more civilian casualties.
Very commendable. How noble to sacrifice the lives of young soldiers when you could be nuking innocent civilians instead!
We should ensure that these nasty weapons stay out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney are the biggest terrorists in the world. Since invading Iraq, they have killed well in excess of three times the number of innocent civilians that died in the WTC on 9/11 - and Iraq didn't even have anything to do with that!
Slashdot Mirror
It was the bloody USA that demanded that emissions trading be included in the protocol!!! All European nations were completely opposed to the idea but finally gave in to American demands so that a meaningful treaty could come in to effect.
No. The problem occurs when they do not arrest everyone for all the trivial crimes that they commit. This is the path to selective enforcement of the law. If everyone is guilty of something, THEY can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want. Political protest will be that much harder. Free speech will only be free if it doesn't embarrass the establishment. THAT is scary.
Ah, so you haven't heard about David Blunkett's new all-over-body barcode tattoo scheme yet? Apparently it will stop terrorists, reduce illegal immigration, reduce benefit fraud and mean that all children can have a kitten, puppy or pony. Or something like that.
Why would anyone pay for Opera when we have had lynx all this time for free?
It isn't the beginning of April already is it!? Or is /. starting early now?
Yes it is. From dictionary.com:
There are many good arguments against pharmaceutical companies holding patents (e.g. the fact that they then prevent generic drugs from being used to save lives in the third world). I don't think that your argument is one of them, however. A group of chemists (working for the company) devise a set of experiments which they then perform over many years at the expense of the company. When an experiment strikes it lucky, it does not make sense to award a patent to that lucky individual. The individual is (financially) rewarded for their discovery through their salary. The patent system rewards the company, without whom the research may* not have happened.
*actually, if we funded universities to undertake the research rather than paying high prices to big business, we would probably advance medical research signicantly, but that is not really a patent issue.
This is one area where the English legal system actually seems to work properly. It is up to the judge to decide. Therefore, s/he can force the loser to pay if they have launched an unreasonable claim against someone else, but can also ensure that individuals don't have to pay the costs of taking on corporations.
Nice idea, but I see a couple of problems. For a start, it costs a lot of money to get patents. Who will pay for that? Secondly, how would you enforce an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" policy? Companies could easily set up subsidiaries with few worthwhile patents to offer. These subsidiaries would then be able to get access to the free patent portfolio without giving up the parent companies'. Software patents are a dirty business. We are better off fighting the principle and getting legislation to prevent them than trying to fight on big business' terms.
Pharmaceutical companies are probably a good counter-example to that argument. In their case, I think it is clear that the innovation comes from the labs and not individuals. They test enormous numbers of drugs in the hope of finding one that works.
Actually, the F16 is also produced by Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and South Korea (article). It is fairly common for aircraft to be produced under license. Other examples are the T-45 Goshawk and AV-8B Harrier II which Boeing produce under license from BAE SYSTEMS (formerly British Aerospace).
Correct. Copyright infringement occurs when one makes an unauthorised copy of a work. Theft occurs when you take the item away from its rightful owner. In the first case, the rightful owner still has the work and can continue to use it. In the second case, the rightful owner has been denied the use of their property.
Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. Most people would probably agree that copyright infringement is wrong - but not as wrong. Furthermore, it can be legitimately argued that copyright infringement is not morally wrong; there is a clear moral basis for denouncing theft but copyright is a much more artificial construct. Copyright infringement is certainly illegal, but it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it should not be.
Interesting idea, but futile, fortunately. The "downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center" would be the distribution upon which the GPL relies. If a vendor provides you with a box and causes some software to be loaded on to the box (other than by telling you to get the software and load it yourself), then they must at some point distribute the code. Hence, the GPL applies.
I do not agree that the GPL is weakened if it is not enforced by everyone. The laws of copyright do not appear to have been weakened by widespread flouting of the law. Unlike trademarks which may lapse if not protected, authors still have the right to enforce their copyright (and hence the GPL) selectively, even if they choose not to.
When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget).
Perhaps Linux should sue them for libel (written) or slander (spoken). However, that costs money and takes considerable time and effort. Is it really worth it? SCO's lies will be laid bare when all of the lawsuits finish. If IBM/Novell/Redhat win, there will be no damage to Linus's reputation. If SCO win (as if!), then Linus would not win anyway. So what would be the point?
Weird logic you have there, my friend. Nobody in Britain thinks that the US is going to come after us, but that doesn't stop most of us thinking that you have a lunatic in the top spot; it doesn't stop most of us from thinking that the invasion of Iraq was utterly unjustified; it doesn't stop us from thinking that the US will destabilise the world and make things more dangerous for everyone.
The self-righteousness that the current administration exhibits is dangerous and unjustified. The fact that it isn't insane enough to attack western Europe doesn't automatically mean that anyone it does attack must be a criminal. It just means that there is some inherent racism/religious bigotry in their choice of target. Unfortunately, the foreign policy of the neo-cons in Washington can be summed up in the same way as their domestic policy. Intolerance.
"Not The Nine O'Clock News" (a satirical BBC programme) said a similar thing about 20 years ago:
The aims of the military setting off a dirty bomb would be very different to the aims of a terrorist. Using weak radiation against an enemy force equipped with NCB gear may not be very effective. Using such a device against a civilian population would be a different matter entirely.
Er, Switzerland isn't actually part of the EU. However, both Switzerland and the Netherlands do have plenty of excellent jobs with very good salaries -- as long as you have the necessary skills.
A plea from across the pond ... Write in Tony Blair.
He is better than either Bush or Kerry. And we don't want him. Perfect solution all round.
Well, its not a single country and only consists of 25 separate soverign states, but the European Union does have a population larger than that of the United States. The legal systems of the EU are far more diverse than those of the US (England and Wales have a Common Law system, most of the other countries have a system based on Civil Law). It manages to elect a parliament without any fuss.
For a Brazilian local government to choose to use Microsoft products, they must obtain a license. That license costs money (and even if it doesn't, other organisations that need to work with the government will have to pay for licenses). That money goes straight out of the Brazilian economy and right into Billy G's coffers.
Why do you think that the national government should not be able to make strategic decisions to improve their economy?
Instead of spending tax-payers' money on software licenses, they can opt for free software and can spend that money on the things that actually improve the standard of living for their citizens. Which is what they are elected to do.
If one is found not guilty in court, then one is innocent in the eyes of the law. What possible justification is there for an innocent person to be out of pocket when a department of the government has made a false (as determined by the court) accusation against that person?
Spam is annoying, but they wouldn't continue unless some people actually made it worthwhile for them to do so. I really have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who is both stupid and greedy enough to fall for these scams. When people stop responding, the scams will stop.
Not soon enough, But the Labour party will never get my vote until Blair is behind bars. Their betrayal of the country has been absolutely disgusting.
Very commendable. How noble to sacrifice the lives of young soldiers when you could be nuking innocent civilians instead!
We should ensure that these nasty weapons stay out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney are the biggest terrorists in the world. Since invading Iraq, they have killed well in excess of three times the number of innocent civilians that died in the WTC on 9/11 - and Iraq didn't even have anything to do with that!