Yes on both counts...and as for the first one, the Post is already reporting the first one as damage being in the $5 billion range, estimated to head up to the $10 billions.
We can speak more freely than anybody in the world, but who, exactly, is listening?
Well, it would help if people spoke. Most people, honestly, don't really care about long-term issues/questions/problems, whether they're about freedom, corporate control, or what have you. Historically, there have been three things (that I can think of) that have acted as controls on corporate power: other corporations, activist organizations, and goverment. Relying on corporate-corporate conflicts is, I admit, moronic: companies are, once again, awakening to the idea that if they all cooperate/merge/ally, they can make a bigger buck than by fighting. But activist organizations (ACLU, Common Cause, and so forth) are doing what they can. In some cases (ACLU) that's a lot. In others (Common Cause) it's not so much. But it's interesting that most people, when polled/asked generally have a negative view of the activist groups (usually as troublemakers/pinkos/destroyers of 'family values', etc). And government, spurred on by the fact that less than half the eligible U.S. population bothers to vote anymore, takes the path of least resistance and goes with the corporations.
I've worked for/with/against several politicians in the last few years, and learned something that's pretty obvious but doesn't generally get noticed. If it's a fight between votes and corporate influence/money, votes generally win. A few thousand letters, and a couple hundred phone calls have a big influence on how a legislator will vote, almost always outweighing a corporate lobbyist's contributions and threats. And if they don't, the people can vote the bastard out of office. Isn't democracy beautiful? The problem is, most people don't care. People vote based on their economic self-interest, or based on who looked better in the ten-second ad they saw on t.v. If they vote at all. I suppose/hope that eventually corporations will go too far, and piss a substantial number of people off enough that effective political action becomes possible, but by then it may be too late. So the question becomes how to convince a largely apathetic population to act on a problem whose full implications are further over the time-horizon than they're willing to think about. It's not so much a matter of listening, I think, as a matter of speaking.
sorry for ranting.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I think the comment by the researcher, "Anything you can do with your brain can be done a lot faster, cheaper and easier with a finger and a remote control." sums the whole thing up. This is great for people who can't use normal interfaces--ie paralysis victims--but for everyone else, not so much. Yes, I can don the nifty electric gear, and use my brain to turn on the tv, but I could just reach over and hit the 'on' switch.
Using it for regular computer use seems really impractical, given the way the system, if I read the article right, seems to operate. You'd be sitting there, mentally screaming "YES!" "NO!" to pick out the letters in your email.
Regarding national security...there's been at least one case where the court has demonstrated its ability to review classified documents relevant to the case: the Pentagon Papers case in...uh, 1970, I think. New York Times v. United States. The Times (and a little later, the Post) came into the possession (via a govt. employee, Ellsberg? who stole the stuff and photocopied it) of a 47-volume set of documents basically demonstrating that the US govt had been lying to the people for 20-odd years about operations in Vietnam. Govt tried to supress the publication of the documents on the basis of national security. The Court grabbed the case, subpoena'd the papers, read them, and ruled for the Times. Long story short: yes, the Court has jurisdiction over classified, nat'l security information, if it's relevant to a case that it's taken up.
Re:This should remind you of a famous conundrum
on
A Eulogy for Iridium
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't there be demand problem? Assuming that miners find a ton of He3 on the moon and start shipping it back. 2 problems. 1st: Only rich nations will be buying into it, at least in the short run. I'm guessing that assuming we figure out how to make a reactor that'll run on He3 and do so efficiently, it won't be cheap to develop/build/maintain. So...not a whole lot of demand in the short run.
In the longer run, things look better. Wonderful, wonderful energy source here. The only thing is---how much energy do we actually need? If one tankful is enough to power the US for a year (I'm just assuming your numbers are right) then the whole world, assuming everyone switches over to He3 for pretty much all purposes, might use...7, 10 tanks a year? probably less. Limits the ability of shippers to make up their costs on the venture, and if they jack up prices too high, people might just decide to not "upgrade" and stick with fossil fuels...
>SmartGuns: Smartguns are currently not ready for primetime.
I agree completely. They're a technology in progress. The problem is that some groups (the NRA, some others) are fighting against research in the area. (denouncement of colt when it announced it'd be spinning off a division for that purpose) That's what puzzles me.
>Also, if it takes time to deactivate the lock (of find a ring, fumble with it, get it on), this is an actual danger to anybody trying to defend themselves against a crime in progress.
Point I hadn't thought of...but I've seen the ring prototypes, they're smaller than wedding rings. People wear their wedding rings to sleep: couldn't they wear the gun-ring?
>As for background checks, they should be instant computer checks.
I agree. Shouldn't be that hard to implement.
With regard to gun shows and enforcement: the thing is, that laws have been selectively modified so that certain rules (background checks, registration, etc) are being waived for gun fairs. And while requiring gun show sellers to follow the same law as everyone else might create a hardship for them, I'd rather make their lives a little more difficult than leave a gaping loophole open for anyone looking to buy a cheap, off-the-books gun w/o a background check.
But anyway, this is veering way the hell off topic, so I'm going to shut up now.
It's true that fighting multinational corporations on their own turf, in the courtroom, is an uphill battle. On the other hand, it may be the best way to go. An international legal/political organization would have to fight every step of the way for every single implementation of change. On the other hand, if a test case can be won (a "perfect" test case, the kind most lobbies wait for--ie one where the GPL was perfectly distributed, etc) and won at a high enough level, massive changes occur--WITH the substantial backing (at least publicly) of the US government, which is arguably the best group to massively rewrite copyright law.
You don't even need to form a group or file for a test case to fight on corporation turf. Write your government representatives every time something like this comes up. Be polite, remind them that you're voting next election, and keep sending mail. I've worked for pol offices, and if there's one thing that gets through, it's a big box of letters and a ton of phone calls coming in every time a new bill comes up. Granted, I like the idea of a massive worldwide geek political/legal foundation...but in the meantime, it's not like we're all powerless.
Sidenote. If the ACLU was working on the case, it would've had to have been with the cooperation of the authors. They can't just jump in and take things over. Even if neither of the guys was a US citizen, it's in US courts, with a US company, so the ACLU's got an interest in it...and they bring free lawyers with 'em.
>You must register something for 2 reasons. >1. B/c owning/using something is not longer a right anymore, but a privledge. (Owning a car, for example). >2. B/c someone wants to keep an eye on you, usually for some evil purpose (like rounding a certain type of person up).
Not true. There are more reasons why you have to register.. If I want to drive my car, I have to get a license first. (ok, you used that example, but I'm going to borrow it for a minute). The reason here isn't because it's not a right, but a privilege, or because They are watching me for when the revolution comes, but because the ability to drive a car can be abused, with massive detrimental effects for society. Drivers can mow people down like daisies. We regulate driving because irresponsible use can lead to loss of life. How is this less so with firearms?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection between gun registration and fascist regime. Other countries do it. Japan pretty much bans guns. England makes it damned hard to get a gun. MOST major industrialized nations, worldwide, put a limit on the ability of people to have a tool which exists for the purpose of killing people. (I'll concede that rifles and such have sporting uses, but I've never seen anyone hunt, who was competent at it, with a pistol.) Last time I checked, the entire non-US world hadn't fallen under a regime of fascist totalitarianism.
Mainly a question for anti-gun control posters/thinkers...even assuming that the second amendment isn't obsolete becuase a well regulated militia isn't really all that necessary to national security, is there any reason why organizations like the NRA are still opposing triggerlocks (which admittedly aren't all that useful) and development of SmartGun tech? (SmartGun tech--yes, I hate the name, but I'm not developing it, it's also known as iGun, believe it or not--basically engages the gun's safety unless it's within close distance (inches) of a ring/badge being worn by the owner: without the ring/key, the gun doesn't work, period).
Additionally, what's the problem with gun registration? I'm not a gun owner, but I don't see any problem with requiring gun registration for all firearms, with background checks.
NRA and it's various suborganizations are also sceaming bloody murder about the fact that law enforcement/legislatures are starting to require the enforcement of laws at gun shows. What's the big deal?
Since most guns that are used in problematic ways (crimes, esp juvenile crimes) are either purchased illegally or (more commonly) lifted from parents' gun cabinets, either idea *might* make illegal/illicit access to guns more difficult. Stronger laws for registration/background checks combined with stronger enforcement make it more difficult to buy guns illegally. Stronger enforcement makes street purchases trickier, and registration ensures that when guns *are* used illegally, they'll be traced to whoever bought it in the first place. SmartGun technology makes it harder for Junior to borrow Dad's TEC-9 and blow his friend's brains out, assuming that Dad is smart enough to hang onto the ring/lock. None of this really infringes on gun ownership for legal purposes by responsible owners.
The problem with privatizing space research development is that most of the Really Cool Stuff (tm) IE planetary exploration, astrophysical observation/analysis, space launches, etc., tend to have their profit potentials--if any--in the Very Long Run.
While most space research has had some extremely beneficial side effects (minaturized computers, CCD cameras, Tang), most are either spinoffs or developments of technologies a looong time after they're developed for the purposes of gathering abstract knowledge. And when abstract knowledge turns out to be useful...well, it's generally stuff that no-one would have researched with profit in mind. (Hence their classification as "abstract knowledge."
Bringing market economics into the equation and killing NASA (and similar organizations, like the ESA) would have the effect of ending all real attempts towards a scientific exploration of the universe. Privately funded companies are formed to earn profits. Stockholders get antsy when you tell them there *might* be profits in thirty years. Maybe. I mean, look at stock market activity for the last ten years: people go where the quick buck is, not for the long-term profits.
The kinds of activity where real profit is possible are generally stuff that I (and I think most people here) really despise--pizza hut's advertising goons wanted to burn their logo into the moon so it'd be visible from Earth, until a consultant told 'em what it would cost--and it doesn't really benefit anyone but companies' profit margins.
As a side comment about benefits: even ignoring all of the spinoff technologies that have been direct results of the space program (just thought of another one: most lightweight/high strength alloys), how about Science Propaganda? Most middle-aged scientists I know got interested in science as a result of the moon landings. I got interested in science after watching shuttle launches on TV. The sheer neatness value of high-glamour projects like Galileo and company shouldn't be underestimated--they help propel some kids to actually learn something about science and bolster the admittedly pathetic public support for general science funding.
I don't know that it's NASA's fault for not telling Congress...in all of the hearings/budget requests that I've read, NASA has basically told Congress that they can have any 2 out of fast/cheap/good. The idea behind the idea of cheap missions was basically, as I see it, a realization that, if NASA kept asking for the old budget and few flights, Congress would butcher the whole damn thing--so they figured "hey, we'll go with fast and cheap, and hope that quantity makes up for the flights we lose somewhere."
Admittedly, some of the blame goes for NASA--making the 'lots of cheap missions' idea had predictable outcomes--but more blame attaches to A) Congress, which seems incapable of understanding the ideas of "abstract knowledge" and "science," and B) the American Public, which bitches and moans about high taxes, demands tax cuts, and is really surprised when government programs are underfunded.
There's a case that might apply...new york courts, so it's not a binding precedent unless the case was filed in NY, but it's something...under cubby v. compuserve, it was established that if a company has previously exercised no editorial control over internet content, it's not liable for it (as far as I read it, I could be wrong). Therefore Yahoo! has the defense that, even though it's making money off of the service, it's not liable for content because it exercises and claims to exercise no editorial control.
On the other hand, there's probably a negligence issue at stake. (I'm too lazy to look up the code sections, sorry) If Yahoo was reasonably informed by other parties (In this case, NOA, at least) that illegal transactions were occurring in a space that Yahoo! provided, Yahoo! is (I think) required, even under common carrier status, to go shut it down. If they don't, it's a case of willful negligence, and I'm pretty sure they're liable for it. While some people have pointed out that Yahoo! doesn't claim to screen for content, and state that they're not responsible, the fact that Yahoo! provides the forum for auctions/trading means (I think) that if there's illegal activity, and they know about it, they're required to do something about it.
Since (I think) this whole issue is null and void if cphack is found to be illegal (by violating copyright,or whatever), does Mattel still have standing to sue the authors--seeing as Mattel now holds the cphack copyright?
Phrased differently, is there a legal differentiation between *writing* the software and holding the copyright on it?
>THis doesn't follow. Mattel did *not* agree that the >authors had any >rights; they purchased whatever rights they >*might* have.
Thus (admittedly, I haven't seen the actual agreement, so I'm not on firm footing) but wouldn't Mattel's hedge--purchasing only whatever rights the programmers retained at the time of signing, thereby allowing Mattel to avoid conceding that the authors *had* rights to it--also be a backfire in that even *if* they *had* assigned their rights to the individuals of the general public under GNU GPL, they (programmers) can't be sued for breach of contract?
It kinda looks like there are only 2 big issues: A) did the author's minimal notice of GPL adoption count as use of GPL licensing (seems it would--book publishers don't have to list relevant code/license sections for copyrights, do they?) and B) should both parties (e.g. Mattel) have been reasonably aware of the now-limited status of the authors' remaining rights at the time of signing?
I'm kinda curious about what point you're trying to justify by bringing up the specific examples of Darwin and Hitler...attacking evolution as a theory makes sense, but pointing out these two individuals doesn't--Hitler reportedly attended church services daily and was considered to be extremely religious (no, I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that religion does not a holy person make) and Darwin was a deacon in the Anglican church who almost became a priest before the Beagle
Slashdot Mirror
Yes on both counts...and as for the first one, the Post is already reporting the first one as damage being in the $5 billion range, estimated to head up to the $10 billions.
Well, it would help if people spoke. Most people, honestly, don't really care about long-term issues/questions/problems, whether they're about freedom, corporate control, or what have you. Historically, there have been three things (that I can think of) that have acted as controls on corporate power: other corporations, activist organizations, and goverment. Relying on corporate-corporate conflicts is, I admit, moronic: companies are, once again, awakening to the idea that if they all cooperate/merge/ally, they can make a bigger buck than by fighting. But activist organizations (ACLU, Common Cause, and so forth) are doing what they can. In some cases (ACLU) that's a lot. In others (Common Cause) it's not so much. But it's interesting that most people, when polled/asked generally have a negative view of the activist groups (usually as troublemakers/pinkos/destroyers of 'family values', etc). And government, spurred on by the fact that less than half the eligible U.S. population bothers to vote anymore, takes the path of least resistance and goes with the corporations.
I've worked for/with/against several politicians in the last few years, and learned something that's pretty obvious but doesn't generally get noticed. If it's a fight between votes and corporate influence/money, votes generally win. A few thousand letters, and a couple hundred phone calls have a big influence on how a legislator will vote, almost always outweighing a corporate lobbyist's contributions and threats. And if they don't, the people can vote the bastard out of office. Isn't democracy beautiful? The problem is, most people don't care. People vote based on their economic self-interest, or based on who looked better in the ten-second ad they saw on t.v. If they vote at all. I suppose/hope that eventually corporations will go too far, and piss a substantial number of people off enough that effective political action becomes possible, but by then it may be too late. So the question becomes how to convince a largely apathetic population to act on a problem whose full implications are further over the time-horizon than they're willing to think about. It's not so much a matter of listening, I think, as a matter of speaking.
sorry for ranting.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
-Abraham Lincoln
Using it for regular computer use seems really impractical, given the way the system, if I read the article right, seems to operate. You'd be sitting there, mentally screaming "YES!" "NO!" to pick out the letters in your email.
But it's still cool.
Regarding national security...there's been at least one case where the court has demonstrated its ability to review classified documents relevant to the case: the Pentagon Papers case in...uh, 1970, I think. New York Times v. United States. The Times (and a little later, the Post) came into the possession (via a govt. employee, Ellsberg? who stole the stuff and photocopied it) of a 47-volume set of documents basically demonstrating that the US govt had been lying to the people for 20-odd years about operations in Vietnam. Govt tried to supress the publication of the documents on the basis of national security. The Court grabbed the case, subpoena'd the papers, read them, and ruled for the Times. Long story short: yes, the Court has jurisdiction over classified, nat'l security information, if it's relevant to a case that it's taken up.
In the longer run, things look better. Wonderful, wonderful energy source here. The only thing is---how much energy do we actually need? If one tankful is enough to power the US for a year (I'm just assuming your numbers are right) then the whole world, assuming everyone switches over to He3 for pretty much all purposes, might use...7, 10 tanks a year? probably less. Limits the ability of shippers to make up their costs on the venture, and if they jack up prices too high, people might just decide to not "upgrade" and stick with fossil fuels...
I agree completely. They're a technology in progress. The problem is that some groups (the NRA, some others) are fighting against research in the area. (denouncement of colt when it announced it'd be spinning off a division for that purpose) That's what puzzles me.
>Also, if it takes time to deactivate the lock (of find a ring, fumble with it, get it on), this is an actual danger to anybody trying to defend themselves against a crime in progress.
Point I hadn't thought of...but I've seen the ring prototypes, they're smaller than wedding rings. People wear their wedding rings to sleep: couldn't they wear the gun-ring?
>As for background checks, they should be instant computer checks.
I agree. Shouldn't be that hard to implement.
With regard to gun shows and enforcement: the thing is, that laws have been selectively modified so that certain rules (background checks, registration, etc) are being waived for gun fairs. And while requiring gun show sellers to follow the same law as everyone else might create a hardship for them, I'd rather make their lives a little more difficult than leave a gaping loophole open for anyone looking to buy a cheap, off-the-books gun w/o a background check.
But anyway, this is veering way the hell off topic, so I'm going to shut up now.
You don't even need to form a group or file for a test case to fight on corporation turf. Write your government representatives every time something like this comes up. Be polite, remind them that you're voting next election, and keep sending mail. I've worked for pol offices, and if there's one thing that gets through, it's a big box of letters and a ton of phone calls coming in every time a new bill comes up. Granted, I like the idea of a massive worldwide geek political/legal foundation...but in the meantime, it's not like we're all powerless.
Sidenote. If the ACLU was working on the case, it would've had to have been with the cooperation of the authors. They can't just jump in and take things over. Even if neither of the guys was a US citizen, it's in US courts, with a US company, so the ACLU's got an interest in it...and they bring free lawyers with 'em.
Not true. There are more reasons why you have to register.. If I want to drive my car, I have to get a license first. (ok, you used that example, but I'm going to borrow it for a minute). The reason here isn't because it's not a right, but a privilege, or because They are watching me for when the revolution comes, but because the ability to drive a car can be abused, with massive detrimental effects for society. Drivers can mow people down like daisies. We regulate driving because irresponsible use can lead to loss of life. How is this less so with firearms?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection between gun registration and fascist regime. Other countries do it. Japan pretty much bans guns. England makes it damned hard to get a gun. MOST major industrialized nations, worldwide, put a limit on the ability of people to have a tool which exists for the purpose of killing people. (I'll concede that rifles and such have sporting uses, but I've never seen anyone hunt, who was competent at it, with a pistol.) Last time I checked, the entire non-US world hadn't fallen under a regime of fascist totalitarianism.
The Pinkerton Inc. Website
The Commission's Website
Their Final Report
The Center For the Prevention of Youth Violence, one of the brainchildren behind the idea
and of course
W.A.V.E.'s site.
Additionally, what's the problem with gun registration? I'm not a gun owner, but I don't see any problem with requiring gun registration for all firearms, with background checks.
NRA and it's various suborganizations are also sceaming bloody murder about the fact that law enforcement/legislatures are starting to require the enforcement of laws at gun shows. What's the big deal?
Since most guns that are used in problematic ways (crimes, esp juvenile crimes) are either purchased illegally or (more commonly) lifted from parents' gun cabinets, either idea *might* make illegal/illicit access to guns more difficult. Stronger laws for registration/background checks combined with stronger enforcement make it more difficult to buy guns illegally. Stronger enforcement makes street purchases trickier, and registration ensures that when guns *are* used illegally, they'll be traced to whoever bought it in the first place. SmartGun technology makes it harder for Junior to borrow Dad's TEC-9 and blow his friend's brains out, assuming that Dad is smart enough to hang onto the ring/lock. None of this really infringes on gun ownership for legal purposes by responsible owners.
So what's the problem with it?
While most space research has had some extremely beneficial side effects (minaturized computers, CCD cameras, Tang), most are either spinoffs or developments of technologies a looong time after they're developed for the purposes of gathering abstract knowledge. And when abstract knowledge turns out to be useful...well, it's generally stuff that no-one would have researched with profit in mind. (Hence their classification as "abstract knowledge."
Bringing market economics into the equation and killing NASA (and similar organizations, like the ESA) would have the effect of ending all real attempts towards a scientific exploration of the universe. Privately funded companies are formed to earn profits. Stockholders get antsy when you tell them there *might* be profits in thirty years. Maybe. I mean, look at stock market activity for the last ten years: people go where the quick buck is, not for the long-term profits.
The kinds of activity where real profit is possible are generally stuff that I (and I think most people here) really despise--pizza hut's advertising goons wanted to burn their logo into the moon so it'd be visible from Earth, until a consultant told 'em what it would cost--and it doesn't really benefit anyone but companies' profit margins.
As a side comment about benefits: even ignoring all of the spinoff technologies that have been direct results of the space program (just thought of another one: most lightweight/high strength alloys), how about Science Propaganda? Most middle-aged scientists I know got interested in science as a result of the moon landings. I got interested in science after watching shuttle launches on TV. The sheer neatness value of high-glamour projects like Galileo and company shouldn't be underestimated--they help propel some kids to actually learn something about science and bolster the admittedly pathetic public support for general science funding.
Admittedly, some of the blame goes for NASA--making the 'lots of cheap missions' idea had predictable outcomes--but more blame attaches to A) Congress, which seems incapable of understanding the ideas of "abstract knowledge" and "science," and B) the American Public, which bitches and moans about high taxes, demands tax cuts, and is really surprised when government programs are underfunded.
On the other hand, there's probably a negligence issue at stake. (I'm too lazy to look up the code sections, sorry) If Yahoo was reasonably informed by other parties (In this case, NOA, at least) that illegal transactions were occurring in a space that Yahoo! provided, Yahoo! is (I think) required, even under common carrier status, to go shut it down. If they don't, it's a case of willful negligence, and I'm pretty sure they're liable for it. While some people have pointed out that Yahoo! doesn't claim to screen for content, and state that they're not responsible, the fact that Yahoo! provides the forum for auctions/trading means (I think) that if there's illegal activity, and they know about it, they're required to do something about it.
Hope this isn't too far from reality--lawyers?
Phrased differently, is there a legal differentiation between *writing* the software and holding the copyright on it?
Thus (admittedly, I haven't seen the actual agreement, so I'm not on firm footing) but wouldn't Mattel's hedge--purchasing only whatever rights the programmers retained at the time of signing, thereby allowing Mattel to avoid conceding that the authors *had* rights to it--also be a backfire in that even *if* they *had* assigned their rights to the individuals of the general public under GNU GPL, they (programmers) can't be sued for breach of contract?
It kinda looks like there are only 2 big issues: A) did the author's minimal notice of GPL adoption count as use of GPL licensing (seems it would--book publishers don't have to list relevant code/license sections for copyrights, do they?) and B) should both parties (e.g. Mattel) have been reasonably aware of the now-limited status of the authors' remaining rights at the time of signing?
-dumb, ignorant pre-law
I'm kinda curious about what point you're trying to justify by bringing up the specific examples of Darwin and Hitler...attacking evolution as a theory makes sense, but pointing out these two individuals doesn't--Hitler reportedly attended church services daily and was considered to be extremely religious (no, I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that religion does not a holy person make) and Darwin was a deacon in the Anglican church who almost became a priest before the Beagle