conversely, some juice and slow burning carbs, like granola can be used to increase energy and the speed of mental activities without influencing a drop in cognitive ability... at least from what i've experienced.
but why would somebody want to become accustom to sugar? considering it's impacts on a persons health and mental abilities.
i've seen similar behavior from all the children i've known who didn't have regular sugar intake.
both when i babysat, while i was younger... and still now that i'm older and my friends and family members are starting to have children.
all it takes is a candy bar or a coke and their mental capabilities go out the window. most people only notice their hyper activity... i've always payed attention to how people think and respond to stimuli.
i second this motion... simple sugars were not made to be eaten by man!
fruit sugars and some more complex carbs don't seem to cause any problems worth mentioning.
but my six year old is still brain dead three days after staying with grandma; where he eats sugary foods and drinks coke.
we don't eat sugared foods in our house, and only drink juice occasionally during the afternoon. and i home-school the boy so i definitely recognize the difference, every time!!
Note: when we do splurge and eat/drink junk at the movies (rare) we wait a few days before doing any school work.
the robot only follows the acceptable commands of an authorized human, not just anyone... a complete psycho with a gun couldn't command any random robot to go steal some drugs from the corner store. they were still required to follow logical rules.
notice in "i, robot" the robot running with the woman's purse didn't stop when the police officer demanded it to.
at 50 cents a day, if you read a paper every day, you could pay for the e-reader in two years. however, usually sunday papers are more expensive, so you may be able to pay for the e-reader sooner.
and if you just buy sunday papers, it would probably take at least 3 years to pay the same amount as the e-reader.
however, if the newspapers made their materials available for download/e-mail to other e-readers, and made their own e-readers capable of opening other txt/pdf type files, then they would undoubtedly find that more people were willing to pay the lower cost for their more simple e-readers... rather than the more expensive cost for the kindle and sony readers which have mp3 players and other possibly unnecessary accessories built in.
having cheaper e-readers would provide a middle ground for those of us not yet willing to pay for the kindle or sony reader.
- i'm still waiting for the day, where like in star trek, everybody has a kindle like device that can provide reading materials (books and news papers), take memos, retrieve endless amounts of data wirelessly (wikipedia, wikitionary...), do complex mathematical calculations, play simple puzzle games, provide for txt based communication (at least), and automatically update schedules for registered classes at college (and the likes), as well as provide emergency information in the case of a hurricane or whatever... et cetera.
the day is coming when all these things and more will be possible; and to me these uses alone are so awesome that investing in the technology now to help it grow is wholly worthwhile.
if only it was an actual cell phone too, and had two screens, one for color/video that could be used when desired and then the e-ink screen for primary use to assure long battery life.
heck with todays tech one could switch from one side to the other just by turning it over (when unlocked), and most importantly the touch interface could remain active on the opposite side, so you could select things without your fingers being in the way of the screen.
the only difference between worker owned coops and for-profit corps is that they function to pad the pockets of the employees rather than the CEOs and stock holders (sunkiss, dairygold and wilco are good examples of this). they do also put a lot of focus on employee benefits and wellbeing, but that's only because the owners are the employees, they cannot be trusted to function in the best interest of all humanity or the environment because of their focus on profit. please forgive me for not clarifying the difference between non-profit worker operated coops, non-profit member operated coops and for profit coops. i do not support for-profit coops.
the focus of my statements was non-profit businesses and their ability to correct the horrifically negative consequences of the control major selfish forces have had over the entire world since time eternal. first kings, then religions, then governments, banks and corporations (or whatever other forms). not that some kings, or operators of governments, banks, and corporations havent also been fairly philanthropic; what i'm saying is that that the focus of these things has overwhelmingly been used to gratify the needs of the few over the many, despite whatever intentions they may have had to begin with or how they may have supposed to have worked. and this is because of the built in ability of these systems to be used for selfish pursuits.
non-profits can, undoubtedly, be designed easily to do just the opposite... to enforce civil service and accountability despite the financial cost. mind you the financial cost does not include the true cost; which requires the consideration of the consequences of all actions while defining the value of a product: be that product energy itself, a tangible object, or a social service.
the accountability built into a true non-profit would force it to continuously work to better define the true cost of a product and make sure that it's customers are paying for what they use.
SECOND, FACTORS:
in the scheme of things, i allow for the use of both customer operated and also employee operated non-profits, since i don't believe all products need to be developed with the direct influence of the customer. in fact, i believe that some businesses would be hindered by the need for their influence.
a good example might be an agency that's designed to develop and maintain, as well as continuously improve, a satellite communications system. such a system would still need to be protected from vandals, despite how peaceful the world ever becomes there will always be somebody who gets a kick out of destroying other peoples things. such a system would also be so technically advanced that very few people not already working there would be able to understand enough about the technology to influence positive change in it's development. however all the details of the technology that didn't need to be protected from vandals should be available and open for discussion, just like the linux kernel and other opensource software. the internal business discussions would also be made public, after any details are removed that would make it easy for vandals to compromise the system.
so anybody could still influence the improvement of the technology, and anyone could also monitor their behavior as an institution and speak out if the organization started to overstep it's bounds and act in an irresponsible manner. and because the agency was bound by it's charter and fairly limited in size it would be fairly easy for a small coalition of people to organize against it, prove it's actions inappropriate--if they were so--and have the charter revoked.
also, the bylaws of the business charter itself would disallow for second chances for it's directors, should they be proven to have participated in any conspiracy to benefit anyone financially through either the action or inaction of the organization.
so both the governments judicial system as well as the bylaws that govern
no... use a business model that is responsible, namely non-profits and cooperatives.
why do people always want to rely on others to do everything for them?
right now we mostly use the non-profit business model for the civil service industry: libraries, fire departments, community services. we also have credit unions and coop grocers; and with their national associations those two are growing in popularity steadily. but we need to use the non-profit business model to replace the major players in insurance and healthcare, transportation and construction, and energy, and other forms of production and especially entertainment.
this would do away with the need for cities, states, and the 'slow' gov to focus so much energy trying to monitor and control the businesses in this country, cause they'd all be controlled instead by the people who use what they produce, as well as the strict rules for how a non-profit can operate; their business charters wouldn't allow them to function as selfish entities!
it would then be easy for a small group of people operating one of the fifty national independent automobile manufacturing plants to change one of their practices if they found a better way to do something, or discovered that the way they did it already was dirtier... then, through a national association, they could transmit that information to the other forty-nine manufacturers so they could either decide to adopt the new way, democratically, or seek out a better way.
this allows for the greatest ability for humans to work together for their true benefit, rather than for individual profit, and it also allows for the easy adoption of sustainable practices throughout our world society... at no cost greater than simply choosing philanthropy over greed.
try and find a flaw in all that, please. i'm still working on the whole idea, but no one has been able to poke holes in the idea that philanthropy, via non-profit businesses, can succeed easily where for-profit businesses have failed.
It's not the efficiency that counts so much as the cost, if they can make the total cost [of solar power] less than that of coal, then it will be viable,... Or we could just use nuclear like sensible people until science perfects fusion or solar.
yeah, you're totally right, solar power isn't already more cost efficient than the loss of our entire freaking planet.
we should probably just all start burning everything--our homes and our children, cause there's nothing better for us to do than speed up the process.
and this is why someone needs to find some funding and start manufacturing electric cars via a local non-profit cooperative organization that only leases cars, takes anything as a trade in and recycles it, and handles all maintenance on site.
advertising for a non-profit is a cheap cheap cheap, financing shouldn't be hard considering those interested and willing to pay small down payments to help start production, finding employees wouldn't be difficult either.
start something! and holler my way if you need help!
but we're part of nature too. so we'd be dead too... so really the universe would probably be the only thing possible of missing anything, and from what it told me yesterday while we were out to dinner at DQ was that it wouldn't really miss anything since 1 in 14,000 planets in the verse could sustain some kind of life. though that life may not be nearly as amusing.
'phasing' in new technologies so they can leech a good amount of profit every step on the way...
the media who can't seem to write enough controversial articles about GW despite the fact that the scientific majority say it's happening and that it's our fault...
and all the greedy for-profits companies that keeping popping up with new ways to supposedly 'recycle' our waste... but of course making glass--which is nearly infinitely recyclable--into long term use counter tops, and turning plastic bottles--that can be reused and recycled for years--into park benches so they can degrade slowly and their particles can contaminate our parks even more thoroughly isn't really what they meant by reduce, reuse, and then:recycle.
it is a broken system... meant at one time to protect peoples ability to make a living, but now it simply limits societies ability to evolve humanly, as well as our ability to use all our most brilliant ideas to be greatest benefit of mankind.
personally, i like a lot of music, and i'd pay to support the artists DIRECTLY... but i have a terabyte hard drive, and and a multimedia phone, and a deep desire to protect the environment... i don't need to purchase CDs or DVDs, and i will not financially support any organization that sues civilians for non-commercial infringement because i consider it to be completely uncivilized and inhumane.
i would rather see those organizations be put out to pasture. music itself would continue to be produced without them: the loss of these betrayers of humanity would only benefit society.
i consider any act of non-commercial infringement to be a beneficial act of human evolution!!
the perception of the copyright holder is of no importance in a legal case, the law is based on the perception of majority rule--this being a democracy. and from what i've seen the majority ruling is that non-commercial copyright infringement is a seriously foolish notion.
to consider somebody guilty of a crime for sharing, and giving away what they have for free... isn't the act of punishing someone for either of these things uncivil and inhuman?
you shouldn't have to read between the lines... furthermore if one is required to in order to understand any law they should no longer be held accountable for violating such a law.
to retort, if a layman cannot understand a rule they should not be held liable for violations of said rule.
so, if the law said simply: that individuals don't have the right to make 'any' copies of materials they didn't originally make without permission, or the right to aid others in experiencing or acquiring said illegal copies--whether it is known to them that they are illegal copies or not. then fair use would no longer exist, and file sharing and public displays of copied materials would be illegal.
however, the law does not say this.
personally, i think the whole ideas of piracy and copyright need to be redefined to disregard 'free use', and by that i mean any use that doesn't cause the user to profit. so as long as you're playing cam copies of movies in you garage for free for neighborhood kids, you cannot be sued or charged with a crime; and as long as you're not producing CD's or selling AVI's online for profit you cannot be sued or charged with a crime.
how someone could be charge with a crime for giving something away for free is beyond me. albeit i understand copyrights were put in place to protect an inventors right to profit from their invention... but wasn't it really to keep other people from profiting off their ideas, not to keep individuals from using those designs for themselves.
can't i go online and snag a copyright for a folding table, make it at home and use it, without being sued for copyright infringement. and what happens when i get a table from IKEA and give the table i made to my neighbor... am i a pirate for distributing copyrighted materials for free? could i go to jail or be sued yet again?
wouldn't that lawsuit be considered not only unfair, but blatantly stupid, and thrown out of court?
i see no difference between the table and an MP3 file.
if you look at the the whole situation as simply as you can it's ridiculous. and the solution is obvious. simply rewrite the laws to allow for 'free use' and 'sharing'. these things don't hurt anyone!! we're all taught they're good things our entire life!
i know i wont be teaching my children not to share for fear of punishment by selfish men, and neither should you.
i'm all for netflix... to me they have both reasonable plans, and a fairly sizable database of movies to rent via mail. however they need to be granted the 'right' legally to make digital copies of all of those movies too... i prefer movies on demand, but their digital database is extremely limited because of our failed copyright law; and if this werent so, i'm sure more companies would make their own databases of digital film for distributing via streaming media services.
if the for-profit monopolies want to survive they really need to embrace new technologies not shun them, as they have been since people were first able to duplicate another persons work. their efforts to stop technology from moving forward and their efforts to limit peoples control over access to entertainment media just makes them look worse and worse and worse.
my generation was raised to spite them, and my child will learn about their behavior as well, as well as why it occurs, and how to stop it. surely other parents will tell their children too... and sooner or later, if they don't stop this madness, they'll simply be replaced.
the solution isn't to limit technology, but to encourage non-profit cooperative... at a non-profit grocer all prices can stay rock bottom for even the highest quality goods.
plus, with the national co-op networks in place co-op grocers, and therefor the buyers themselves, can work together to encourage the manufacturers to make better products that cost less than, rather than more than, the crappier products.
[i call this the wall-mart strategy, since they're notorious for successfully setting their own buying prices and demanding changes in manufacturing practices.]
a good example of this could be: a sugarless wholegrain cereal at a co-op could cost less than a high sugar content bleached and then re-enriched cereal, or a sugarless organic peanut butter--which is naturally sweet--could be cheaper than sugared inorganic name brand crap.
this would do away with the need to waste a customers time scanning the products at every grocery store to create a customer friendly database of product pricing schemes across a city/nation.
please take note that such a system could be modified by retail agents.
also note the fact that: in most areas the majority of the grocers are owned by the same organization. in seattle it's really just kroger vs wal-mart, and whole foods vs co-ops. all of kroger's stores are strategically designed to appear in business against each other in order to influence the sales of certain items. [i am the horses mouth]
if you don't want to allow your government to drag you on one path or another subvert it... how? well not by blowing up the capital. subvert it by replacing it's many functions with citizen--not corporate--controllable organizations. and by replacing corporations with controlling interests with localized non-profit cooperative orgs.
you name the corporation and i'll list off how to replace it with an non-profit org, and how the non-profit will undoubtedly be able to provide better services and products.
i'm talking about things like: state independent non-governmental non-profit member controlled insurance agencies that can provide all manner of insurance... and can pay out all funds paid to them, except a minimal amount for handling costs. heres 'at cost' insurance, and it can pay out for medical emergencies, vehicle collision repair, and elderly care, et cetera. who needs social security when there are non-profit insurance organizations that can pay you your unused money back later (tax free), and IRAs (also tax free)?
oh wait, this topic is about security and the internet.
so, who's really interested in spying on and limiting internet activities? it's not the government for the most part.
why not replace the music industry corporations, and movie industry corporations, and current organizations (riaa, mpaa), with truly non-profit, civilian interested organizations. there are several that are already in place and make the majority of truly quality films today anyway. most people don't know it, but many quality films are financially backed by either one use, or small non-profit organizations. they just need to focus on pushing the for-profits out of the picture by creating more diverse films, and advertising their services, as well as encouraging donations from the masses, and requiring that the tickets and DVDs for their movies be sold at cost, or so close to it that the difference is unnoticeable to the buyer. that difference can then be used to further their reach into the big for-profit's pockets.
the same goes for the music industry, imagine a world filled with quality music distributed by organizations that are interested in strengthening our societies culture rather than producing cheap cookie cutter goods to our youth that turn a quick buck--or a few million.
why would a non-profit be interested in limiting peoples ability to enjoy their wares, and why would somebody bother downloading something for free when the can get it at cost, and guarantee their continued access to low cost but high quality goods by paying that low cost, or even donating more to cover the difference for those who may not be able to afford that cost or may not be willing to pay it.
i don't see why there needs to be so much focus on keeping our data from the eyes of our government anyway. really there should be more interest in removing their reason for prying in the first place.
and yes, i realize this is all about the UK gov looking through facebook for terrorists. and no, i don't think our national security agencies should be privatized, not even as non-profit organizations. but honestly who cares if they're sitting in our bedrooms looking through our paper journals while we're at work, as long as they're not misusing any of the personal information they might find. if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't be worried. true privacy is after all wholly unachievable.
however there should be strict requirements just to justify the costs of exercising the ability to sniff packets and file legal claim to access data. there should be a required percentage of payoff to prove to the taxpayers that their work is proving fruitful.
if they set up a system to just watch everything, and play big brother, and it costs millions, but only manages to stop or identifies terrorists one out of every ten terrorist attack, or proves incapable of tracking a certain group. then those funds should surely be cut back and that agency should be put on probation for misappropriation of finances. and
i forgot about MediaWiki's WikiBooks... i suppose the smart thingto do here is generate a WikiSchool.org that incorporates wikipedia and wikibooks materials, along with hosted educational vids, into a curriculum to be followed by those seeking educational enrichment.
then those courses could seek qualification as accepted by the board of education, and a third party org could be developed--like WAVA.org--to monitor and provide proof of the success of students (accreditation of materials/course structure and educational oversight for the student body).
a free, open-source, Alternative Learning Environment for all!
there are how-to sites out there like this... find one thats free, as in open-source and non-profit, and encourage them to organize not only how-to PDFs and Vids, but quarterly class curriculum as well.
i homeschool my kid via WAVA.org, a washington state public school that uses K12.com materials... it's really the best way to teach a child, by far... so long as there's a learning coach with the patience to teach the child daily, for free. anyhow, there's no reason a sustainable non-profit version of k12.com's material couldn't be developed--and for a wider age group than just K-12th grade.
brainpop.com is another for-profit that could use an open-source non-profit retrofit!
Slashdot Mirror
conversely, some juice and slow burning carbs, like granola can be used to increase energy and the speed of mental activities without influencing a drop in cognitive ability... at least from what i've experienced.
but why would somebody want to become accustom to sugar? considering it's impacts on a persons health and mental abilities.
i've seen similar behavior from all the children i've known who didn't have regular sugar intake.
both when i babysat, while i was younger... and still now that i'm older and my friends and family members are starting to have children.
all it takes is a candy bar or a coke and their mental capabilities go out the window. most people only notice their hyper activity... i've always payed attention to how people think and respond to stimuli.
i second this motion... simple sugars were not made to be eaten by man!
fruit sugars and some more complex carbs don't seem to cause any problems worth mentioning.
but my six year old is still brain dead three days after staying with grandma; where he eats sugary foods and drinks coke.
we don't eat sugared foods in our house, and only drink juice occasionally during the afternoon. and i home-school the boy so i definitely recognize the difference, every time!!
Note: when we do splurge and eat/drink junk at the movies (rare) we wait a few days before doing any school work.
u should read my bio
the robot only follows the acceptable commands of an authorized human, not just anyone... a complete psycho with a gun couldn't command any random robot to go steal some drugs from the corner store. they were still required to follow logical rules.
notice in "i, robot" the robot running with the woman's purse didn't stop when the police officer demanded it to.
at 50 cents a day, if you read a paper every day, you could pay for the e-reader in two years. however, usually sunday papers are more expensive, so you may be able to pay for the e-reader sooner.
and if you just buy sunday papers, it would probably take at least 3 years to pay the same amount as the e-reader.
however, if the newspapers made their materials available for download/e-mail to other e-readers, and made their own e-readers capable of opening other txt/pdf type files, then they would undoubtedly find that more people were willing to pay the lower cost for their more simple e-readers... rather than the more expensive cost for the kindle and sony readers which have mp3 players and other possibly unnecessary accessories built in.
having cheaper e-readers would provide a middle ground for those of us not yet willing to pay for the kindle or sony reader.
- i'm still waiting for the day, where like in star trek, everybody has a kindle like device that can provide reading materials (books and news papers), take memos, retrieve endless amounts of data wirelessly (wikipedia, wikitionary...), do complex mathematical calculations, play simple puzzle games, provide for txt based communication (at least), and automatically update schedules for registered classes at college (and the likes), as well as provide emergency information in the case of a hurricane or whatever... et cetera.
the day is coming when all these things and more will be possible; and to me these uses alone are so awesome that investing in the technology now to help it grow is wholly worthwhile.
if only it was an actual cell phone too, and had two screens, one for color/video that could be used when desired and then the e-ink screen for primary use to assure long battery life.
heck with todays tech one could switch from one side to the other just by turning it over (when unlocked), and most importantly the touch interface could remain active on the opposite side, so you could select things without your fingers being in the way of the screen.
i can prove you wrong:
FIRST, WORKER OWNED COOPS:
the only difference between worker owned coops and for-profit corps is that they function to pad the pockets of the employees rather than the CEOs and stock holders (sunkiss, dairygold and wilco are good examples of this). they do also put a lot of focus on employee benefits and wellbeing, but that's only because the owners are the employees, they cannot be trusted to function in the best interest of all humanity or the environment because of their focus on profit. please forgive me for not clarifying the difference between non-profit worker operated coops, non-profit member operated coops and for profit coops. i do not support for-profit coops.
the focus of my statements was non-profit businesses and their ability to correct the horrifically negative consequences of the control major selfish forces have had over the entire world since time eternal. first kings, then religions, then governments, banks and corporations (or whatever other forms). not that some kings, or operators of governments, banks, and corporations havent also been fairly philanthropic; what i'm saying is that that the focus of these things has overwhelmingly been used to gratify the needs of the few over the many, despite whatever intentions they may have had to begin with or how they may have supposed to have worked. and this is because of the built in ability of these systems to be used for selfish pursuits.
non-profits can, undoubtedly, be designed easily to do just the opposite... to enforce civil service and accountability despite the financial cost. mind you the financial cost does not include the true cost; which requires the consideration of the consequences of all actions while defining the value of a product: be that product energy itself, a tangible object, or a social service.
the accountability built into a true non-profit would force it to continuously work to better define the true cost of a product and make sure that it's customers are paying for what they use.
SECOND, FACTORS:
in the scheme of things, i allow for the use of both customer operated and also employee operated non-profits, since i don't believe all products need to be developed with the direct influence of the customer. in fact, i believe that some businesses would be hindered by the need for their influence.
a good example might be an agency that's designed to develop and maintain, as well as continuously improve, a satellite communications system. such a system would still need to be protected from vandals, despite how peaceful the world ever becomes there will always be somebody who gets a kick out of destroying other peoples things. such a system would also be so technically advanced that very few people not already working there would be able to understand enough about the technology to influence positive change in it's development. however all the details of the technology that didn't need to be protected from vandals should be available and open for discussion, just like the linux kernel and other opensource software. the internal business discussions would also be made public, after any details are removed that would make it easy for vandals to compromise the system.
so anybody could still influence the improvement of the technology, and anyone could also monitor their behavior as an institution and speak out if the organization started to overstep it's bounds and act in an irresponsible manner. and because the agency was bound by it's charter and fairly limited in size it would be fairly easy for a small coalition of people to organize against it, prove it's actions inappropriate--if they were so--and have the charter revoked.
also, the bylaws of the business charter itself would disallow for second chances for it's directors, should they be proven to have participated in any conspiracy to benefit anyone financially through either the action or inaction of the organization.
so both the governments judicial system as well as the bylaws that govern
no... use a business model that is responsible, namely non-profits and cooperatives.
why do people always want to rely on others to do everything for them?
right now we mostly use the non-profit business model for the civil service industry: libraries, fire departments, community services. we also have credit unions and coop grocers; and with their national associations those two are growing in popularity steadily. but we need to use the non-profit business model to replace the major players in insurance and healthcare, transportation and construction, and energy, and other forms of production and especially entertainment.
this would do away with the need for cities, states, and the 'slow' gov to focus so much energy trying to monitor and control the businesses in this country, cause they'd all be controlled instead by the people who use what they produce, as well as the strict rules for how a non-profit can operate; their business charters wouldn't allow them to function as selfish entities!
it would then be easy for a small group of people operating one of the fifty national independent automobile manufacturing plants to change one of their practices if they found a better way to do something, or discovered that the way they did it already was dirtier... then, through a national association, they could transmit that information to the other forty-nine manufacturers so they could either decide to adopt the new way, democratically, or seek out a better way.
this allows for the greatest ability for humans to work together for their true benefit, rather than for individual profit, and it also allows for the easy adoption of sustainable practices throughout our world society... at no cost greater than simply choosing philanthropy over greed.
try and find a flaw in all that, please. i'm still working on the whole idea, but no one has been able to poke holes in the idea that philanthropy, via non-profit businesses, can succeed easily where for-profit businesses have failed.
you don't need laws to govern responsible businesses!
solve the problem at the base!
i'm logged in, i have no idea why that posted anonymously... but i think reposting would be silly, so...
the above post was by me folks! ; )
It's not the efficiency that counts so much as the cost, if they can make the total cost [of solar power] less than that of coal, then it will be viable, ... Or we could just use nuclear like sensible people until science perfects fusion or solar.
yeah, you're totally right, solar power isn't already more cost efficient than the loss of our entire freaking planet.
we should probably just all start burning everything--our homes and our children, cause there's nothing better for us to do than speed up the process.
sit boo boo, sit.
and this is why someone needs to find some funding and start manufacturing electric cars via a local non-profit cooperative organization that only leases cars, takes anything as a trade in and recycles it, and handles all maintenance on site.
advertising for a non-profit is a cheap cheap cheap, financing shouldn't be hard considering those interested and willing to pay small down payments to help start production, finding employees wouldn't be difficult either.
start something! and holler my way if you need help!
why speak out, and ask someone else to do it for you? they wont, this isn't a democracy.
make change for yourself... start a local non-profit cooperative!
and read my other comments or hit me up if u need help!
but we're part of nature too. so we'd be dead too... so really the universe would probably be the only thing possible of missing anything, and from what it told me yesterday while we were out to dinner at DQ was that it wouldn't really miss anything since 1 in 14,000 planets in the verse could sustain some kind of life. though that life may not be nearly as amusing.
the people who benefit most now are the ones:
'phasing' in new technologies so they can leech a good amount of profit every step on the way...
the media who can't seem to write enough controversial articles about GW despite the fact that the scientific majority say it's happening and that it's our fault...
and all the greedy for-profits companies that keeping popping up with new ways to supposedly 'recycle' our waste... but of course making glass--which is nearly infinitely recyclable--into long term use counter tops, and turning plastic bottles--that can be reused and recycled for years--into park benches so they can degrade slowly and their particles can contaminate our parks even more thoroughly isn't really what they meant by reduce, reuse, and then :recycle.
DVDFab is a newer DVDDecrypter with more features.
it is a broken system... meant at one time to protect peoples ability to make a living, but now it simply limits societies ability to evolve humanly, as well as our ability to use all our most brilliant ideas to be greatest benefit of mankind.
broken is an understatement.
personally, i like a lot of music, and i'd pay to support the artists DIRECTLY... but i have a terabyte hard drive, and and a multimedia phone, and a deep desire to protect the environment... i don't need to purchase CDs or DVDs, and i will not financially support any organization that sues civilians for non-commercial infringement because i consider it to be completely uncivilized and inhumane.
i would rather see those organizations be put out to pasture. music itself would continue to be produced without them: the loss of these betrayers of humanity would only benefit society.
i consider any act of non-commercial infringement to be a beneficial act of human evolution!!
Vivir el revolucion de mente!!
the perception of the copyright holder is of no importance in a legal case, the law is based on the perception of majority rule--this being a democracy. and from what i've seen the majority ruling is that non-commercial copyright infringement is a seriously foolish notion.
to consider somebody guilty of a crime for sharing, and giving away what they have for free... isn't the act of punishing someone for either of these things uncivil and inhuman?
you shouldn't have to read between the lines... furthermore if one is required to in order to understand any law they should no longer be held accountable for violating such a law.
to retort, if a layman cannot understand a rule they should not be held liable for violations of said rule.
so, if the law said simply: that individuals don't have the right to make 'any' copies of materials they didn't originally make without permission, or the right to aid others in experiencing or acquiring said illegal copies--whether it is known to them that they are illegal copies or not. then fair use would no longer exist, and file sharing and public displays of copied materials would be illegal.
however, the law does not say this.
personally, i think the whole ideas of piracy and copyright need to be redefined to disregard 'free use', and by that i mean any use that doesn't cause the user to profit. so as long as you're playing cam copies of movies in you garage for free for neighborhood kids, you cannot be sued or charged with a crime; and as long as you're not producing CD's or selling AVI's online for profit you cannot be sued or charged with a crime.
how someone could be charge with a crime for giving something away for free is beyond me. albeit i understand copyrights were put in place to protect an inventors right to profit from their invention... but wasn't it really to keep other people from profiting off their ideas, not to keep individuals from using those designs for themselves.
can't i go online and snag a copyright for a folding table, make it at home and use it, without being sued for copyright infringement. and what happens when i get a table from IKEA and give the table i made to my neighbor... am i a pirate for distributing copyrighted materials for free? could i go to jail or be sued yet again?
wouldn't that lawsuit be considered not only unfair, but blatantly stupid, and thrown out of court?
i see no difference between the table and an MP3 file.
if you look at the the whole situation as simply as you can it's ridiculous. and the solution is obvious. simply rewrite the laws to allow for 'free use' and 'sharing'. these things don't hurt anyone!! we're all taught they're good things our entire life!
i know i wont be teaching my children not to share for fear of punishment by selfish men, and neither should you.
i'm all for netflix... to me they have both reasonable plans, and a fairly sizable database of movies to rent via mail. however they need to be granted the 'right' legally to make digital copies of all of those movies too... i prefer movies on demand, but their digital database is extremely limited because of our failed copyright law; and if this werent so, i'm sure more companies would make their own databases of digital film for distributing via streaming media services.
if the for-profit monopolies want to survive they really need to embrace new technologies not shun them, as they have been since people were first able to duplicate another persons work. their efforts to stop technology from moving forward and their efforts to limit peoples control over access to entertainment media just makes them look worse and worse and worse.
my generation was raised to spite them, and my child will learn about their behavior as well, as well as why it occurs, and how to stop it. surely other parents will tell their children too... and sooner or later, if they don't stop this madness, they'll simply be replaced.
the solution isn't to limit technology, but to encourage non-profit cooperative... at a non-profit grocer all prices can stay rock bottom for even the highest quality goods.
plus, with the national co-op networks in place co-op grocers, and therefor the buyers themselves, can work together to encourage the manufacturers to make better products that cost less than, rather than more than, the crappier products.
[i call this the wall-mart strategy, since they're notorious for successfully setting their own buying prices and demanding changes in manufacturing practices.]
a good example of this could be: a sugarless wholegrain cereal at a co-op could cost less than a high sugar content bleached and then re-enriched cereal, or a sugarless organic peanut butter--which is naturally sweet--could be cheaper than sugared inorganic name brand crap.
this would do away with the need to waste a customers time scanning the products at every grocery store to create a customer friendly database of product pricing schemes across a city/nation.
please take note that such a system could be modified by retail agents.
also note the fact that: in most areas the majority of the grocers are owned by the same organization. in seattle it's really just kroger vs wal-mart, and whole foods vs co-ops. all of kroger's stores are strategically designed to appear in business against each other in order to influence the sales of certain items. [i am the horses mouth]
if you don't want to allow your government to drag you on one path or another subvert it... how? well not by blowing up the capital. subvert it by replacing it's many functions with citizen--not corporate--controllable organizations. and by replacing corporations with controlling interests with localized non-profit cooperative orgs.
you name the corporation and i'll list off how to replace it with an non-profit org, and how the non-profit will undoubtedly be able to provide better services and products.
i'm talking about things like: state independent non-governmental non-profit member controlled insurance agencies that can provide all manner of insurance... and can pay out all funds paid to them, except a minimal amount for handling costs. heres 'at cost' insurance, and it can pay out for medical emergencies, vehicle collision repair, and elderly care, et cetera. who needs social security when there are non-profit insurance organizations that can pay you your unused money back later (tax free), and IRAs (also tax free)?
oh wait, this topic is about security and the internet.
so, who's really interested in spying on and limiting internet activities? it's not the government for the most part.
why not replace the music industry corporations, and movie industry corporations, and current organizations (riaa, mpaa), with truly non-profit, civilian interested organizations. there are several that are already in place and make the majority of truly quality films today anyway. most people don't know it, but many quality films are financially backed by either one use, or small non-profit organizations. they just need to focus on pushing the for-profits out of the picture by creating more diverse films, and advertising their services, as well as encouraging donations from the masses, and requiring that the tickets and DVDs for their movies be sold at cost, or so close to it that the difference is unnoticeable to the buyer. that difference can then be used to further their reach into the big for-profit's pockets.
the same goes for the music industry, imagine a world filled with quality music distributed by organizations that are interested in strengthening our societies culture rather than producing cheap cookie cutter goods to our youth that turn a quick buck--or a few million.
why would a non-profit be interested in limiting peoples ability to enjoy their wares, and why would somebody bother downloading something for free when the can get it at cost, and guarantee their continued access to low cost but high quality goods by paying that low cost, or even donating more to cover the difference for those who may not be able to afford that cost or may not be willing to pay it.
i don't see why there needs to be so much focus on keeping our data from the eyes of our government anyway. really there should be more interest in removing their reason for prying in the first place.
and yes, i realize this is all about the UK gov looking through facebook for terrorists. and no, i don't think our national security agencies should be privatized, not even as non-profit organizations. but honestly who cares if they're sitting in our bedrooms looking through our paper journals while we're at work, as long as they're not misusing any of the personal information they might find. if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't be worried. true privacy is after all wholly unachievable.
however there should be strict requirements just to justify the costs of exercising the ability to sniff packets and file legal claim to access data. there should be a required percentage of payoff to prove to the taxpayers that their work is proving fruitful.
if they set up a system to just watch everything, and play big brother, and it costs millions, but only manages to stop or identifies terrorists one out of every ten terrorist attack, or proves incapable of tracking a certain group. then those funds should surely be cut back and that agency should be put on probation for misappropriation of finances. and
i forgot about MediaWiki's WikiBooks... i suppose the smart thingto do here is generate a WikiSchool.org that incorporates wikipedia and wikibooks materials, along with hosted educational vids, into a curriculum to be followed by those seeking educational enrichment.
then those courses could seek qualification as accepted by the board of education, and a third party org could be developed--like WAVA.org--to monitor and provide proof of the success of students (accreditation of materials/course structure and educational oversight for the student body).
a free, open-source, Alternative Learning Environment for all!
there are how-to sites out there like this... find one thats free, as in open-source and non-profit, and encourage them to organize not only how-to PDFs and Vids, but quarterly class curriculum as well.
i homeschool my kid via WAVA.org, a washington state public school that uses K12.com materials... it's really the best way to teach a child, by far... so long as there's a learning coach with the patience to teach the child daily, for free. anyhow, there's no reason a sustainable non-profit version of k12.com's material couldn't be developed--and for a wider age group than just K-12th grade.
brainpop.com is another for-profit that could use an open-source non-profit retrofit!