I don't think it's about perception, it's about fact. I think the real solid hard core fact is that we are in the information age, an age that is centered arround the unrestricted flow of information. Linux treates unrestricted copying like a benefit, MS treats it like a competitive threat. How can it be more black and white than that?
Society needs that free flow in order to move forward, failing to do so has serious economic and personal consequences that can not be avoided. I renember. That is, I renember all the businesses that blew off Linux, wanted to blow off Linux, tried to blow off Linux, but eventually couldn't because of pure economic, flexability, and resource truths.
I honestly think too many businesses saw "copyright" more like a genuine free market commercial property right that the intrusive government regulation on how people can use information that it is. Linux aviods the whole problem, and is truely a blessing in disguise.
During the dot com flush it was really slow, but now it seems like I have more work than I can handle using Linux, both programming, network admin, and system admin. My friends who had only MS admin and development experience haven't fared so well. I guess the down-turn wasn't about who fell down, but who was able to get back up again.
From what I renember, Edison got caught up in endless litigation that distracted greatly from his efforts, and from focusing on the area where was most talanted. In fact from what I renember, the fray nearly destroyed him.
Other inventors like Eli Whitney, he never made a dime for inventing the cotton gyn, but later made a fortune from the reputation it created when he was awarded contracts for manufactured arms.
Patnets are not "protection" like everyone touts. When a person makes a licensing agreement, what they are really making is a promise not to sue if you pay them. In any other context it would be called extortion, but certainly not incentive or property.
I think in a normal world. people would collaberate and fund raise to do RnD - their creations would gain them value and reputation, and that would lead to new opportunities. But we don't live in a normal world, we live in a patent world - a world where companies receive vast rewards for cutting off other companies from new tchnologies. A world where those little inventors (who patents are supposed to help) are premanately locked out.
Yeah, I know the "party line" that one that says no big companies will invent without patent monopolies, but just look at how many items in the average kitchen were really invented by a big company (hint none). Look at the electricity, phone, the PC, the radio, and so on.... (no big companies). I think if people kicked patents the hell out of they way they'd be supprised what happens. It would free up millions of inventions, to millions more inventors, and create a sunami of economic growth and technology. The fact that inventions can be coppied should be treated like a opportunity, not a threat, or even worse a theft. Patents monopolies (and I mean all of them, not just software) simply half to die and calling them intellectual "property" is simply fradulent.
... isn't all the peoples lives who have been interrupted because of the lawsuit, but all the people who bought the propaganda that SCO was enterprise "material" back in the 90's while blowing off Linux.
WOW! I created that page/domain in 98, and then my hoster shut off access after I created some links to some "unathorized" content. But they still auto billed my bank card for almost a year after, but I never noticed because I moved arround the same time and just emptied out the account, but never closed it. I didn't even know till a year later when the bank decided to shut off access and track me down for overdraft - my hoster stole several hundred dollars from me. Anyhow, I had lost the page and the info and eventually let go of the domain and thought it all gone for good. So that is very cool.
Reading back over it, since 98 mp3's took off, p2p has taken off, and so has similar sharing schemes, as well as Linux that has since had IPO's and been adopted by IBM to the tune of billions. I think it was shockingly accurate about problems with IP scene. How many "future" predictors get paid millions and never get it so close even a year out?
If I seem certain, it is only because I come from the side that used to love copyrights as a true freemarket "property" right that "helped" artists. It is only after receiving tons of BS, and personal attacks for asking simple questions like "are copyrights property?" That it slowly became obvious to me that they are such a fraud and a lie. Which is why I question your sincerity, why aren't you asking those simple questions?
I imagine, if I made an agreement with some one, and then boke it - then that would be dishonerable. But that's allot different than saying we should have massive federally backed restrictions on what people copy, and it is very dishonest to portray it as such.
Also, here requesting "proof" is totally hypocritical. The people who wish to impose copyrights are the ones screaming grand broad statements and ramming them down our throat, like "I have NO incentive", and "people who copy are pirates". If it's so obvious, then you prove that copyrights are beneficial, afterall it is your side that wishes to ram massive federal restrictions on what people can copy down our throats. IMHO, the burden of proof here isn't on me - I'm just refuting allot of the BS arguments I've herd over the years. Assuming the party line just isn't good enough anymore.
It is true that the people who create information have natural limits on their time and resources, but that's also very dishonest to portray the limits on their time and resources as the same thing as artificially imposed limits on information distrubution. If anything it shows how getting rid of copyrights will take the focus off of hollywood industry and put it back on individual artists. Funny you should mention Einstein, I don't recall him receiving any royalities for his contrabutions to society, but he did quite well IMHO.
How can someone who possesses 'artistic genius' require the use of someone else's material to express that genius?
Ever hear the saying No man is an island
Isn't it more likely that those that " copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed". have more to blame on the quality of their work than their access to someone else's?
Microsoft/Britney/Madonna that's quality? In fact, IMHO they didn't even do much of their original stuff.
What in the hell does saying bad things about the king have to do with modern copyright issues? Is it valid to compare the Renaissance, when copies were made at great expense by hand exclusively for the ruling class, and the case of Dave from Topeka, who has 2000 ripped songs on his hard drive and takes great pleasure in giving them to anyone in the world who asks?
Copyrights exist to encourage information to be dissapated out into the open (see constitution). The fact that things are easier to copy is an argument for less restrictive copy controlls NOT MORE!
How does calling someone who takes something that does not belong to them without permission a thief relate to "a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people"?" The copyright exists no matter what the reason - besides - surely copyrights benefit at least some creative people - wishing or screaming that it is a lie does not make it so.
A thief is defind by another's property loss, not by their personal gain. And no matter how you word it, it is clear to see that copyrights only benefit a few people, eg Madonna. Once again, it is the media that is screaming, not me.
And please tell me that the reason that "the right to copy, share, and distribute information is a right!" isn't simply that today "Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground". I don't have the right to punch you in the face just because I can.
Yeah, but if it was your photo copy of my face you have the right to punch it any time.... so please.... feel free. (eventually you'll get it)
Finally, I know allot of people like me who spent 5K+ to get a RHCE, and others who spent 1000s to by hardware withouthat copy controlls. It's not about freebies, it's about freedom, and untill you get that right there, you'll never "get it".
If they said there was no incentive to do good things unless the government could choose your religion... or they said there is no incentive to grow food, unless farmers could rip up your garden... most people would see these as the awful values that they are. But if they say that there is no incentive to make beneficial or creative works without the power to restrict what people copy (copyrights), then all too many people just take it on faith. They don't even question it, as if incentive makes rights, as if society would fall apart without them. But just as much of the Renaissance happened without copyrights so should the information age.
Calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from mutual respect and the fact that not everybody can posses something at the same time. The foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. Copyrights are about control, censorship, and not a free market property. In fact, they cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.
Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as "thief" and "pirate", as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. Yet these verbal assaults hide a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people". The truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it "big", there are unmentioned thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. Some are even bared or sued from sharing their own creations in public, others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Most creators are far better off sharing and distributing their creations freely to make a reputation for themselves. Copyrights not only cause them to be drowned out in a sea of hype, but do so deceptively.
However, these aren't the only problems related to copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to offer quality material, the failures of the market to offer competitively priced books for college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. Their hypocritical pleas like, "how will we make money without copyrights?" is like a mobster asking "how will I make money with out victims extort?"
The burdens of imposing copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today in the information age there is no technical distinction between copyright content and free speech content. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground".Our society must make a choice: Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy will either half to intruded or protected. Our speech, writing, and free expression will either half to be abridged or unabridged. Any institution that has the power to control one, must have the power to control all. Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it of at the root!
Consider parallels to other periods of transition like the industrial revolution:
History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. Ironically just the opposite was true,the industrial revolution demanded a mobile and skilled workforce.
I think morally speaking, copyrights are just another way of saying "the only way I will make information is if I can controll and manipulate you with it". I think morally speaking, property rights are an ethical way of dealing with the fact that not everyone can use the same thing at the same time, but when someone distorts that truth and declares their incentive is an excuse to controll you it is no better than saying, "well I don't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I can own you as a slave on the plantation"
I think that just as the industrial revolution demanded a mobile work force and forced the death of slavery, that the information age demands the unrestricted flow of information and the death of copyrights. Will people raise hell over it, sure, but it must happen and is happening.
Here we are in an information age that demands the unrestricted flow of information. Yet all to many people are trying harder than ever to controll the free flow of information. It seems to me that it's just the same poor belief system poping its head up in another ugly way.
So what you're saying is that Hitler made poor economic decisions that had short term benefits, but were disasterous for the long term. (like many governments tend to do, including the USA eg 79 inflation, and China today with currency) But, then it seems, to keep it from hitting the fan, he had to abuse his power and take extremely abusive political measures.
Well it still proves my point that China, without political accountability to freedoms is dangerous.
I didn't know what the details were, all I knew was that germany had an economic base that was large enough to make a powerfull war machine, but this economic foundation didn't guarantee anything about freedom or peace.
I've seen lots of cases where freedom leads to a strong economic situation, but I have never seen a situation where a strong economic situation leads to freedom. In fact, it tends to lead to just the opposite - as society becomes more prosperous, their populations tend to become more demanding, causing the government to take more strong measures to stay in controll. Germany had a nice and industrial economy in 1939 too, we all know where that led.
Is go to netcraft.com and check "What's that site running?..." - If it's running Microsoft anything, then I skip the online credit card and call in the purchase.
Bit torrent sites are set up to help people steal other people's property (C'mon, like you go there to get Linux distros or other GPL'd stuff) making this scam kind of funny.
... and copyrights are not "property" in any true sense of the word. It is amazing how many people still dont get that.
When a situation gets strange, like this one, it's usually some type of setup.
How many people out there break their neck trying to get a site that is popular for people to use. This guy probably could have made a hella of a lot more than he just stole. In fact it amazes me how someone could just piss away such a good opportunity for a bad one. The only explanation I can think of is that he is some kind of self choosing looser, or maybe like one of those people who win the lottery and then blow it all and commit suicide. Fear of success? Major personal problems? Couldn't handle the responsibility? I don't know, I won't feel sorry for him though when his future opportunities dry up. There are plenty of struggeling people in the world who will gladly take his place. I'm sure whatever he gained is only temporary, he clearly cant think thru the consequences of his choices and will probably blow anything he took on useless short term persuits.
Grid in the sense that if my datacenter needs more resources, I just plug in a blamk PC with extra CPU/MEM/Disk and not worry about it. Or if one goes bad, I just rip it out without worring about what it will destroy.
Virtualisation in sanse that if I need an email server - I just create a virtual one on this grid and let it go, if I need a DNS server - I just create one on this grid and let it go, a web server... same thing, ldap server same thing. If a server gets under load, it will automatically devote more memory/space/cpu/bandwidth to it as reasonable.
All the successes you mentioned happened specifically because they were held accountable to western powers. Are you recommending the same with China? And yes, China has threatened several times to start a major war over Tiwan. If they want so badly to be one country, they should submit themselves to the sovreignty of Tiwan - they would certainly be better off for it.
BTW, I'm from the US - maybe you consider US a small country, but I think we're doing pretty well compaired to everyone else, thank you. Hint: it's the freedom.
Well, I somewhat disagree here. The tax load just isn't that great. Sure less taxes would mean a boost, but remember the US taxes about 18% of its GDP (going up to 22% or so when you count the borrowing). Most member states of the EU (and many other countries) have considerably higher taxes than that.
What are you talking about, I would die for 18% or even 22% tax. Between property, sales, state income, federal income, 100's of misc taxes, and social security (which may as well be a tax for anyone under 50, because they'll never see a penny of it - not to mention that you are taxed on it both before and after you get a paycheck). Between all that I could easially end up paying 40 to 60 % of my income.
Also the public school system in the USA is so bad because it's paid for in a way that has absolutely no direct accountablilty. You don't see these problems in US private schools. To the extent that India uses public schools, thy'll end up suffering these problems too.
In the 1950's/60's the former USSR had a head start on fundamental R&D in many areas that the USA couldn't even touch (like space and math). But over the long term they simply didn't have the "social/policital infrastructure" to support them and the USA prevailed.
China is in a similar positon, if they don't go democratic quick - they are going to be totally unable to handle the changes and demands that a modern economy will bring and social chaos will ensue.
Every country that grows has political and economic pressures. Even the US suffered protests and riots in the 60s. In the US, the outlet for these pressures was democracy and protest, India which is also a democracy will have similar such outlets, but China has none. It is a powder keg waiting to explode. That's why I would bet my money on India long before I even touched China.
Don't be supprised if the Chineese leaders try to deal with these pressures by becomming more authoritarian like the Germans did in 1939. Sure the Germans in early 1940 had strong economic growth, but as history has taught us - economic growth without political freedom growth is very very dangerous.
I like to look at India like my precious daughter. She is growing 5 times faster than I am now, but she will likely not grow taller than I for quite awhile. The fundamental things holding back the USA are taxes, regulations, intellectual "property" restrictions, and just plain too much restrained freedom.
Eventually India will reach these barriers too, and so will the rest of the world until someone finds out how to persue and implement the "next generation" of freedoms. So even though they might eventually outsize the US because of sheer population - they will probably not surpass it per/capita until the next frontier of freedom is reached. (it will probably be ocean based communities in international waters)
Foolishness!! The only companies to be harmed by legislating CO2 emissions are those providing CO2-emitting fuels.
You dont understand the big picture here. Not even the Clinton administration wanted it. This has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 producing companies. It has to do with the USA.
Many european countries/ industries have been completely unable to keep up with the USA - their only hope is to "slow the US down" with new layers of vast regulatory controlls. Koyoto does a wonderfull job of ganging up on the US, and trying to brow beat us into terms that completely suck compaired to the rest of the world. Regulations don't create jobs, or change, or growth - they tend to lock in the status quo. If you don't want that, you need to seek and identify regulations that require removal (like nuclear?), not create more. Name one industry that ever got more innovative because of extra regulations.
Could there be problems with CO2, sure, but right now the political realities are far more sanguine than the enviromental ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's about perception, it's about fact. I think the real solid hard core fact is that we are in the information age, an age that is centered arround the unrestricted flow of information. Linux treates unrestricted copying like a benefit, MS treats it like a competitive threat. How can it be more black and white than that?
Society needs that free flow in order to move forward, failing to do so has serious economic and personal consequences that can not be avoided. I renember. That is, I renember all the businesses that blew off Linux, wanted to blow off Linux, tried to blow off Linux, but eventually couldn't because of pure economic, flexability, and resource truths.
I honestly think too many businesses saw "copyright" more like a genuine free market commercial property right that the intrusive government regulation on how people can use information that it is. Linux aviods the whole problem, and is truely a blessing in disguise.
During the dot com flush it was really slow, but now it seems like I have more work than I can handle using Linux, both programming, network admin, and system admin. My friends who had only MS admin and development experience haven't fared so well. I guess the down-turn wasn't about who fell down, but who was able to get back up again.
From what I renember, Edison got caught up in endless litigation that distracted greatly from his efforts, and from focusing on the area where was most talanted. In fact from what I renember, the fray nearly destroyed him.
Other inventors like Eli Whitney, he never made a dime for inventing the cotton gyn, but later made a fortune from the reputation it created when he was awarded contracts for manufactured arms.
Patnets are not "protection" like everyone touts. When a person makes a licensing agreement, what they are really making is a promise not to sue if you pay them. In any other context it would be called extortion, but certainly not incentive or property.
I think in a normal world. people would collaberate and fund raise to do RnD - their creations would gain them value and reputation, and that would lead to new opportunities. But we don't live in a normal world, we live in a patent world - a world where companies receive vast rewards for cutting off other companies from new tchnologies. A world where those little inventors (who patents are supposed to help) are premanately locked out.
.... (no big companies). I think if people kicked patents the hell out of they way they'd be supprised what happens. It would free up millions of inventions, to millions more inventors, and create a sunami of economic growth and technology. The fact that inventions can be coppied should be treated like a opportunity, not a threat, or even worse a theft. Patents monopolies (and I mean all of them, not just software) simply half to die and calling them
Yeah, I know the "party line" that one that says no big companies will invent without patent monopolies, but just look at how many items in the average kitchen were really invented by a big company (hint none). Look at the electricity, phone, the PC, the radio, and so on
intellectual "property" is simply fradulent.
maybe you should try one of these sites ....
http://www.heart-of-asia.com or
http://www.latineuro.com or
http://teamo.com
There are 3 billion women in the world, and most just want a nice guy to support, take care of, and give them a stable life.
WOW! I created that page/domain in 98, and then my hoster shut off access after I created some links to some "unathorized" content. But they still auto billed my bank card for almost a year after, but I never noticed because I moved arround the same time and just emptied out the account, but never closed it. I didn't even know till a year later when the bank decided to shut off access and track me down for overdraft - my hoster stole several hundred dollars from me. Anyhow, I had lost the page and the info and eventually let go of the domain and thought it all gone for good. So that is very cool.
Reading back over it, since 98 mp3's took off, p2p has taken off, and so has similar sharing schemes, as well as Linux that has since had IPO's and been adopted by IBM to the tune of billions. I think it was shockingly accurate about problems with IP scene. How many "future" predictors get paid millions and never get it so close even a year out?
If I seem certain, it is only because I come from the side that used to love copyrights as a true freemarket "property" right that "helped" artists. It is only after receiving tons of BS, and personal attacks for asking simple questions like "are copyrights property?" That it slowly became obvious to me that they are such a fraud and a lie. Which is why I question your sincerity, why aren't you asking those simple questions?
I imagine, if I made an agreement with some one, and then boke it - then that would be dishonerable. But that's allot different than saying we should have massive federally backed restrictions on what people copy, and it is very dishonest to portray it as such.
Also, here requesting "proof" is totally hypocritical. The people who wish to impose copyrights are the ones screaming grand broad statements and ramming them down our throat, like "I have NO incentive", and "people who copy are pirates". If it's so obvious, then you prove that copyrights are beneficial, afterall it is your side that wishes to ram massive federal restrictions on what people can copy down our throats. IMHO, the burden of proof here isn't on me - I'm just refuting allot of the BS arguments I've herd over the years. Assuming the party line just isn't good enough anymore.
It is true that the people who create information have natural limits on their time and resources, but that's also very dishonest to portray the limits on their time and resources as the same thing as artificially imposed limits on information distrubution. If anything it shows how getting rid of copyrights will take the focus off of hollywood industry and put it back on individual artists. Funny you should mention Einstein, I don't recall him receiving any royalities for his contrabutions to society, but he did quite well IMHO.
How can someone who possesses 'artistic genius' require the use of someone else's material to express that genius?
Ever hear the saying No man is an island
Isn't it more likely that those that " copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed". have more to blame on the quality of their work than their access to someone else's?
Microsoft/Britney/Madonna that's quality? In fact, IMHO they didn't even do much of their original stuff.
What in the hell does saying bad things about the king have to do with modern copyright issues? Is it valid to compare the Renaissance, when copies were made at great expense by hand exclusively for the ruling class, and the case of Dave from Topeka, who has 2000 ripped songs on his hard drive and takes great pleasure in giving them to anyone in the world who asks?
Copyrights exist to encourage information to be dissapated out into the open (see constitution). The fact that things are easier to copy is an argument for less restrictive copy controlls NOT MORE!
How does calling someone who takes something that does not belong to them without permission a thief relate to "a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people"?" The copyright exists no matter what the reason - besides - surely copyrights benefit at least some creative people - wishing or screaming that it is a lie does not make it so.
A thief is defind by another's property loss, not by their personal gain. And no matter how you word it, it is clear to see that copyrights only benefit a few people, eg Madonna. Once again, it is the media that is screaming, not me.
And please tell me that the reason that "the right to copy, share, and distribute information is a right!" isn't simply that today "Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground". I don't have the right to punch you in the face just because I can.
Yeah, but if it was your photo copy of my face you have the right to punch it any time .... so please .... feel free. (eventually you'll get it)
Finally, I know allot of people like me who spent 5K+ to get a RHCE, and others who spent 1000s to by hardware withouthat copy controlls. It's not about freebies, it's about freedom, and untill you get that right there, you'll never "get it".
Do you mind if I print it out and distribute it?
You're jokeing right? :) Yes, please distribute it all you want, and thanks for the proof-read - I changed my home copy.
If they said there was no incentive to do good things unless the government could choose your religion ... or they said there is no incentive to grow food, unless farmers could rip up your garden ... most people would see these as the awful values that they are. But if they say that there is no incentive to make beneficial or creative works without the power to restrict what people copy (copyrights), then all too many people just take it on faith. They don't even question it, as if incentive makes rights, as if society would fall apart without them. But just as much of the Renaissance happened without copyrights so should the information age.
Calling copyrights "intellectual property" is intellectually dishonest. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from mutual respect and the fact that not everybody can posses something at the same time. The foundation of copyrights derives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. Copyrights are about control, censorship, and not a free market property. In fact, they cheapen property rights by treating things that have natural limits in supply such as food, shelter, and medicine like information that does not.
Worse, is how people who copy are slandered with names such as "thief" and "pirate", as if copying was akin to boarding a ship and murdering people. They are even accused of stealing food out of the mouths of starving artists. Yet these verbal assaults hide a cold and calculated lie, the one that says "copyrights benefit creative people". The truth is that for every artist or writer that has made it "big", there are unmentioned thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed. Some are even bared or sued from sharing their own creations in public, others die with the world never truly knowing their artistic genius as the mass media drowns them out. Most creators are far better off sharing and distributing their creations freely to make a reputation for themselves. Copyrights not only cause them to be drowned out in a sea of hype, but do so deceptively.
However, these aren't the only problems related to copyrights. They are just a sample of many that are constantly blown off, glossed over, or ignored. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to offer quality material, the failures of the market to offer competitively priced books for college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few. Their hypocritical pleas like, "how will we make money without copyrights?" is like a mobster asking "how will I make money with out victims extort?"
The burdens of imposing copyrights might have been bearable a quarter century ago when the biggest issue was copy machines. But today in the information age there is no technical distinction between copyright content and free speech content. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate, there can be no "middle ground".Our society must make a choice: Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy will either half to intruded or protected. Our speech, writing, and free expression will either half to be abridged or unabridged. Any institution that has the power to control one, must have the power to control all. Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it of at the root!
Consider parallels to other periods of transition like the industrial revolution:
History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. Ironically just the opposite was true,the industrial revolution demanded a mobile and skilled workforce.
First, they responded by making
I think morally speaking, copyrights are just another way of saying "the only way I will make information is if I can controll and manipulate you with it". I think morally speaking, property rights are an ethical way of dealing with the fact that not everyone can use the same thing at the same time, but when someone distorts that truth and declares their incentive is an excuse to controll you it is no better than saying, "well I don't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I can own you as a slave on the plantation"
I think that just as the industrial revolution demanded a mobile work force and forced the death of slavery, that the information age demands the unrestricted flow of information and the death of copyrights. Will people raise hell over it, sure, but it must happen and is happening.
Here we are in an information age that demands the unrestricted flow of information. Yet all to many people are trying harder than ever to controll the free flow of information. It seems to me that it's just the same poor belief system poping its head up in another ugly way.
So what you're saying is that Hitler made poor economic decisions that had short term benefits, but were disasterous for the long term. (like many governments tend to do, including the USA eg 79 inflation, and China today with currency) But, then it seems, to keep it from hitting the fan, he had to abuse his power and take extremely abusive political measures.
Well it still proves my point that China, without political accountability to freedoms is dangerous.
I didn't know what the details were, all I knew was that germany had an economic base that was large enough to make a powerfull war machine, but this economic foundation didn't guarantee anything about freedom or peace.
I've seen lots of cases where freedom leads to a strong economic situation, but I have never seen a situation where a strong economic situation leads to freedom. In fact, it tends to lead to just the opposite - as society becomes more prosperous, their populations tend to become more demanding, causing the government to take more strong measures to stay in controll. Germany had a nice and industrial economy in 1939 too, we all know where that led.
Is go to netcraft.com and check "What's that site running?..." - If it's running Microsoft anything, then I skip the online credit card and call in the purchase.
Bit torrent sites are set up to help people steal other people's property (C'mon, like you go there to get Linux distros or other GPL'd stuff) making this scam kind of funny.
... and copyrights are not "property" in any true sense of the word. It is amazing how many people still dont get that.
When a situation gets strange, like this one, it's usually some type of setup.
How many people out there break their neck trying to get a site that is popular for people to use. This guy probably could have made a hella of a lot more than he just stole. In fact it amazes me how someone could just piss away such a good opportunity for a bad one. The only explanation I can think of is that he is some kind of self choosing looser, or maybe like one of those people who win the lottery and then blow it all and commit suicide. Fear of success? Major personal problems? Couldn't handle the responsibility? I don't know, I won't feel sorry for him though when his future opportunities dry up. There are plenty of struggeling people in the world who will gladly take his place. I'm sure whatever he gained is only temporary, he clearly cant think thru the consequences of his choices and will probably blow anything he took on useless short term persuits.
I don't know about you, but I'd love to have some sample source available to understand better what they're doing and how it all fits together.
Is a combinataion of grid and virtualisation.
... same thing, ldap server same thing. If a server gets under load, it will automatically devote more memory/space/cpu/bandwidth to it as reasonable.
Grid in the sense that if my datacenter needs more resources, I just plug in a blamk PC with extra CPU/MEM/Disk and not worry about it. Or if one goes bad, I just rip it out without worring about what it will destroy.
Virtualisation in sanse that if I need an email server - I just create a virtual one on this grid and let it go, if I need a DNS server - I just create one on this grid and let it go, a web server
That is my idea of a true grid.
All the successes you mentioned happened specifically because they were held accountable to western powers. Are you recommending the same with China? And yes, China has threatened several times to start a major war over Tiwan. If they want so badly to be one country, they should submit themselves to the sovreignty of Tiwan - they would certainly be better off for it.
BTW, I'm from the US - maybe you consider US a small country, but I think we're doing pretty well compaired to everyone else, thank you. Hint: it's the freedom.
Well, I somewhat disagree here. The tax load just isn't that great. Sure less taxes would mean a boost, but remember the US taxes about 18% of its GDP (going up to 22% or so when you count the borrowing). Most member states of the EU (and many other countries) have considerably higher taxes than that.
What are you talking about, I would die for 18% or even 22% tax. Between property, sales, state income, federal income, 100's of misc taxes, and social security (which may as well be a tax for anyone under 50, because they'll never see a penny of it - not to mention that you are taxed on it both before and after you get a paycheck). Between all that I could easially end up paying 40 to 60 % of my income.
Also the public school system in the USA is so bad because it's paid for in a way that has absolutely no direct accountablilty. You don't see these problems in US private schools. To the extent that India uses public schools, thy'll end up suffering these problems too.
In the 1950's/60's the former USSR had a head start on fundamental R&D in many areas that the USA couldn't even touch (like space and math). But over the long term they simply didn't have the "social/policital infrastructure" to support them and the USA prevailed.
China is in a similar positon, if they don't go democratic quick - they are going to be totally unable to handle the changes and demands that a modern economy will bring and social chaos will ensue.
Every country that grows has political and economic pressures. Even the US suffered protests and riots in the 60s. In the US, the outlet for these pressures was democracy and protest, India which is also a democracy will have similar such outlets, but China has none. It is a powder keg waiting to explode. That's why I would bet my money on India long before I even touched China.
Don't be supprised if the Chineese leaders try to deal with these pressures by becomming more authoritarian like the Germans did in 1939. Sure the Germans in early 1940 had strong economic growth, but as history has taught us - economic growth without political freedom growth is very very dangerous.
I like to look at India like my precious daughter. She is growing 5 times faster than I am now, but she will likely not grow taller than I for quite awhile. The fundamental things holding back the USA are taxes, regulations, intellectual "property" restrictions, and just plain too much restrained freedom.
Eventually India will reach these barriers too, and so will the rest of the world until someone finds out how to persue and implement the "next generation" of freedoms. So even though they might eventually outsize the US because of sheer population - they will probably not surpass it per/capita until the next frontier of freedom is reached. (it will probably be ocean based communities in international waters)
Foolishness!! The only companies to be harmed by legislating CO2 emissions are those providing CO2-emitting fuels.
You dont understand the big picture here. Not even the Clinton administration wanted it. This has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 producing companies. It has to do with the USA.
Many european countries/ industries have been completely unable to keep up with the USA - their only hope is to "slow the US down" with new layers of vast regulatory controlls. Koyoto does a wonderfull job of ganging up on the US, and trying to brow beat us into terms that completely suck compaired to the rest of the world. Regulations don't create jobs, or change, or growth - they tend to lock in the status quo. If you don't want that, you need to seek and identify regulations that require removal (like nuclear?), not create more. Name one industry that ever got more innovative because of extra regulations.
Could there be problems with CO2, sure, but right now the political realities are far more sanguine than the enviromental ones.