I'd like to brainstorm, but I don't want to use a Blogger account. So here's a transient effort:
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright. 2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee. 3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt. 4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work. 5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value or 5 percent above that value to any and all comers. At the value if the purchaser will put the work under a copyleft, 5 percent above if the purchaser will keep the work copyright. 6. Copyright status lasts for 10 years, then the works convert to copyleft for another ten then they go into the public domain. 7. Orignally copyleft works remain copyleft for the life of the author (and perhaps plys whatever.) 8. Works building on public domain works are not elegible for copyright status, only copyleft. (Does this make any practical sense??
The tax parts are prohibitive if they're required and based on some imaginary "market value" (without a real buyer for real numbers). Instead, the copyright registrant must register their auditable costs invested when registering the copyright. They must register any income derived from the copyright (without any restriction), subject to audit. Registration fee of 1% (tweakable on real economic analysis for maximized content value growth against registrar admin costs) can be deferred until income, but rise to 5%. Income is taxed at 1%, nondeferred. When income exceeds 10x investment (tweakable on real economic analysis to maximize production incentive against minimized time), the copyright expires. Depending on the medium (tweakable by real economic analysis on the medium's consumer network effect on creating content value), copyright would expire no later than 17 years (tweakable by real demographic analysis of an average human generation) for songs and books, probably half that for movies, probably less than movies for "TV"/video, probably less for photos, probably somewhere between video and movies for software. somewhere around that for videogames...
After copyright expires, everything automatically becomes copyleft (if that means "attribution required" is the only requirement for copying) for the same period as the medium's default copyright duration (not any economic expiration), after which it's public domain and even attribution is optional (but encouraged).
That model recognizes the real compromises in our rights to free expression with market necessities in an info economy, by recognizing the public's contribution to copyrighted value and the cost of administration. Unregistered works find the burden of proof on the holder of the work to document all the dates/amounts they could have registered. Some of the administration includes government funded education (designed by the educators) to distinguish meaningful differences in content in each respective medium from trivial differences.
That regime would transform America's info economy to lead the world. Growth would be emphasized, with "raw material" for new combinatory production broadly available to even the least organized/funded producers.
"Let's"? As in "let us"? How do we do that, when we're not Microsoft? And when Microsoft has even lied for years about securing Windows, even the biggest lie of all when Gates told the world that everyone at MS took a month away from doing anything else just to work on security. But they didn't, and it shows.
The whole point of MS insecurity is that its inherent in their business model, not just their shabby technology. They don't care because they don't have to care, because insecurity often helps them and rarely hurts them - because monopoly captives have nowhere to go.
The way the Toyota mouthpiece in TFA talks about their specific design/manufacturing process economies, it's clear he's talking specifically about sticking with gas/eletric hybrids.
To be clear, I'm not advocating anything, though I'd love to eliminate all "car" exhaust, including even at the smokestack. I love driving, but cars suck, and they're no longer sustainable as polluters. Hybrids are a useful transition, but only to something sustainable.
What I'm doing is piercing the Toyota happy-talk to show how it masks a grim reality: Toyota thinks it's off the hook for "clean cars" just by going "hybrid", which isn't enough. The resistance in the responses to my posts to seeing that reality shows just how successful Toyota will be in going down that path.
The Harry Fox Agency, which got its rights to "mechanical reproduction of music" by getting monopoly control over the piano roll market a century ago, has already taken down most tablature from the Web on its flimsy pretext to copyright (and its big lawyer and lobbyist payroll).
Tablatures are interpretations of the music as heard by someone. They're not even the public performance of music that whistling your favorite song as you walk down the street would be. But once public places are comprehensively wired for sound and video, Harry Fox will be sending you a bill for every time you do just that.
These insane government monopolies on content already part of folklore, from which folk activity they get nearly all their current value, must end. They are justified in the Constitution as a compromise with 1700s economics only "to promote progress in science and the useful arts". Instead, they now prohibit that progress. Copyrights must end no later than after a human generation of publication, shorter for media other than songs and books, and probably earlier than when 10x their registered production investment is recouped.
"Hybrids" are gas/electric. The details from Toyota in the story of why they're going "all hybrid" are so gas/electric-specific that it's clear what they mean.
Projecting our hopes onto car companies' exec strategy has always failed to deliver. Why start now?
There's no reason banks of batteries can't be quick charged in parallel, then discharged in series. But from your inability to comprehend my post, coupled with your obnoxiously blaming that on me, I don't expect you to understand electrical engineering.
But just for fun, here it is again: the Toyota committment to 100% hybrids means that no non-hybrids will be sold in 2020, even though that rules out technologies that are better for the environment and diminishing fuel supplies than are hybrids. Nowhere did I say that hybrids don't burn gas. To pretend that a regenerative braking H2 vehicle is a "hybrid" is to pretend to be a lawyer, even though you can't read, when this discussion would only be interesting if you could think like an electrical or automotive engineer. Don't worry, I know you're not up to it.
If you're going to be wrong because you can't read, don't go overboard and blame me with your illiteracy.
If they get out of it (by getting out from under the pressure) by making hybrids like the current generation, then they'll be able to say "we promised 100% hybrids, and we're delivering". Their current ads brag about how they didn't expect the current hybrids would be popular or necessary, but they're making more to please us. So they'll keep doing just that, especially if we're still pleased in 2020 with a solution visionary in 2003, but inadequate in 2020.
I didn't say they shouldn't move away from all-IC cars to more hybrids. All ICs should have "hybrid" tech or whatever else reduces its waste for better efficiency of what it must burn.
But the Toyota announcement says more than that. It says that they won't be doing any more than just hybrids. But hybrids alone aren't enough.
Toyota's statement, as I described, doesn't "set them up well to eliminate/transform it". It sets them up to get environmental concerns off their backs by whispering "hybrid" in our ear, rather than actually set up for that.
Fuelcells are just getting started. They already consume fuels like m/ethanol and even diesel and uncracked natural gas, other than just pure H2. To make definitive statements about the end solution when we're just getting out of the last technology into the new ones is foolish.
And the way you did it is obnoxious, doubly foolish.
I've got a pipeful of fuelcell fuel coming into my house over my natural gas pipe right now. I expect that compressed gas and liquids like methanol will be at least as easily distributed as is gasoline. The overall energy budget for producing and handling m/ethanol outweighs the better energy density of gasoline.
But my point is that we're getting nothing but cars that burn gasoline (even if more efficiently) through 2020 from Toyota, according to this announcement.
"Hybrid" is a hybrid of gasoline and electric power.
There is no reason to give Toyota, or any other petro/auto corp, the benefit of any doubt any more. Car makers were supposed to have sold at least 2% of their total sales in zero emissions vehicles to qualify to sell in California, by 1998. They cried an extension to 2004 or something, then got the rules scrapped entirely. Now they're locking in with the glow of hybrids. This is how they play the game, and there's no reason to think it's anything else.
It's an interesting tactic, even if it's just a marketing claim with no results data (as you mention).
Meaningful data would examine whether attackers merely stopped attacking when seeing an Apache ID, or whether they tried attacking it as if it were Apache. And what results if the server ID'ed itself as some "unknown" (nonexistent, possibly random/unique) server type.
I'd expect the tactic to have some benefit. Just like organisms in the wild which mimic dangerous other organisms, or just obscure their tasty, vulnerable parts with masquerades.
So Toyota will sell no all-electric or other "zero emissions" cars in 2020? No H2 or fuelcell vehicles? Hybrids are better than simple internal combustion engines, but not good enough. Has Toyota and the car industry just figured out that they can avoid the really big change away from gasoline just by getting us all to go "ooh, hybrids - that's good"?
Anonymous stupid Coward still isn't done playing with their new toy, saying "stupid" over and again without anything else to say. Stupid Anonymous Coward.
Anonymous stupid Coward is too stupid to say anything but stupid repetition of the word "stupid". Now that's worthless illogic that isn't even a fallacy. It's just stupid.
The problem is circular logic. "If the small target reasoning is correct, then X." You can't use X to demonstrate the small target reasoning's correctness.
Finding nothing but logical fallacies in that offered argument shows it's worthless.
Unless something else is added. Like the actual stats I suggested that could dis/prove it. But though it seems a fair argument, security behavior of large, networked populations is usually surprising. So I reject its assertions until they're backed up with some rigor.
For the same reasons I would reject the counterargument that Linux's small target size makes it insecure, because Linux security depends on many people using, examining, and reporting/fixing its security holes. Until I get some evidence of that process.
So the whole line of thinking is nearly all holes, and very little substance. Which I find is nearly always the case when that kind of "the reasons are the excuse" argument is made.
The security scenario is dynamic. However, the "small target" argument is offered in response to claims that Linux is safer, not in response to claims that Linux will remain safer. Therefore that argument is void. But people offer it because it's hard to argue with, except to discount it as inappropriate to the point being made.
Making that argument about the changing size vs security needs actual statistical facts, which should be available, to back it up. I have never seen anyone show that the relative security between Windows and Linux has matched their relative userbase sizes, as they've both grown and the ratios have changed. Nor have I seen anyone explain how anomalous disproportions merely precede some tipping point some point in the future, after Windows insecurity significantly changes the userbase ratios in favor of Linux.
In other words, that argument is a weaselly way to change the subject without admitting it, and without backing it up. Which is exactly how that form of argument is always used. Because it works to fool people, even if it's invalid.
Part of the reason Ubuntu Linux is more secure than Windows, and easier to use, is that users don't browse the Internet for drivers. The Ubuntu APT system (inherited from Debian) makes a single standard commandline or a few clicks on a GUI, using one of a few interchangeable and standard installer clients, retrieve packages from secure repositories. The repositories are open like the rest of the OS, so many people have a chance to discover that something they contain is trouble, then tell everyone. While the actual package is cryptosigned to prevent middleman attacks and other interference with getting what the user asked for.
The APT system is probably the best part of Ubuntu(/Debian). The entire combo of security and easy use in the app lifecycle is perhaps the killer app for desktop Linux, now that Ubuntu has extended that to the initial OS install.
Security of one's PC isn't a moral battle between platforms, though the holy wars between zealots do look like it. The relatively small payoff for targeting Linux might be the reason that Linux is more secure, but that reason is part of the proof that the result is that Linux is more secure.
I don't know why people think that giving reasons that explain why something is true somehow reduces the importance of that truth. But we often see people defending a losing side by explaining the reasons why the other side is winning. Maybe that excuses their support for the loser, but they have just further proven why the other side is winning.
Most opinion polls are run on phone#s. Most of those surveyed are on landlines, because most listed phone#s and answered phones are landlines, not to mention their geographical cross-referencability.
So therefore most opinion polls are increasingly biased towards older, richer people. Who tend to be Republicans, even though the country is tending dramatically away from being Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
The tax parts are prohibitive if they're required and based on some imaginary "market value" (without a real buyer for real numbers). Instead, the copyright registrant must register their auditable costs invested when registering the copyright. They must register any income derived from the copyright (without any restriction), subject to audit. Registration fee of 1% (tweakable on real economic analysis for maximized content value growth against registrar admin costs) can be deferred until income, but rise to 5%. Income is taxed at 1%, nondeferred. When income exceeds 10x investment (tweakable on real economic analysis to maximize production incentive against minimized time), the copyright expires. Depending on the medium (tweakable by real economic analysis on the medium's consumer network effect on creating content value), copyright would expire no later than 17 years (tweakable by real demographic analysis of an average human generation) for songs and books, probably half that for movies, probably less than movies for "TV"/video, probably less for photos, probably somewhere between video and movies for software. somewhere around that for videogames...
After copyright expires, everything automatically becomes copyleft (if that means "attribution required" is the only requirement for copying) for the same period as the medium's default copyright duration (not any economic expiration), after which it's public domain and even attribution is optional (but encouraged).
That model recognizes the real compromises in our rights to free expression with market necessities in an info economy, by recognizing the public's contribution to copyrighted value and the cost of administration. Unregistered works find the burden of proof on the holder of the work to document all the dates/amounts they could have registered. Some of the administration includes government funded education (designed by the educators) to distinguish meaningful differences in content in each respective medium from trivial differences.
That regime would transform America's info economy to lead the world. Growth would be emphasized, with "raw material" for new combinatory production broadly available to even the least organized/funded producers.
How about symptoms of estrogen poisoning, like not seeing the angry face is angry, even when it's shouting mere feet from the poison victim?
"Let's"? As in "let us"? How do we do that, when we're not Microsoft? And when Microsoft has even lied for years about securing Windows, even the biggest lie of all when Gates told the world that everyone at MS took a month away from doing anything else just to work on security. But they didn't, and it shows.
The whole point of MS insecurity is that its inherent in their business model, not just their shabby technology. They don't care because they don't have to care, because insecurity often helps them and rarely hurts them - because monopoly captives have nowhere to go.
The way the Toyota mouthpiece in TFA talks about their specific design/manufacturing process economies, it's clear he's talking specifically about sticking with gas/eletric hybrids.
To be clear, I'm not advocating anything, though I'd love to eliminate all "car" exhaust, including even at the smokestack. I love driving, but cars suck, and they're no longer sustainable as polluters. Hybrids are a useful transition, but only to something sustainable.
What I'm doing is piercing the Toyota happy-talk to show how it masks a grim reality: Toyota thinks it's off the hook for "clean cars" just by going "hybrid", which isn't enough. The resistance in the responses to my posts to seeing that reality shows just how successful Toyota will be in going down that path.
The Harry Fox Agency, which got its rights to "mechanical reproduction of music" by getting monopoly control over the piano roll market a century ago, has already taken down most tablature from the Web on its flimsy pretext to copyright (and its big lawyer and lobbyist payroll).
Tablatures are interpretations of the music as heard by someone. They're not even the public performance of music that whistling your favorite song as you walk down the street would be. But once public places are comprehensively wired for sound and video, Harry Fox will be sending you a bill for every time you do just that.
These insane government monopolies on content already part of folklore, from which folk activity they get nearly all their current value, must end. They are justified in the Constitution as a compromise with 1700s economics only "to promote progress in science and the useful arts". Instead, they now prohibit that progress. Copyrights must end no later than after a human generation of publication, shorter for media other than songs and books, and probably earlier than when 10x their registered production investment is recouped.
"Hybrids" are gas/electric. The details from Toyota in the story of why they're going "all hybrid" are so gas/electric-specific that it's clear what they mean.
Projecting our hopes onto car companies' exec strategy has always failed to deliver. Why start now?
You seem to be a fool.
There's no reason banks of batteries can't be quick charged in parallel, then discharged in series. But from your inability to comprehend my post, coupled with your obnoxiously blaming that on me, I don't expect you to understand electrical engineering.
But just for fun, here it is again: the Toyota committment to 100% hybrids means that no non-hybrids will be sold in 2020, even though that rules out technologies that are better for the environment and diminishing fuel supplies than are hybrids. Nowhere did I say that hybrids don't burn gas. To pretend that a regenerative braking H2 vehicle is a "hybrid" is to pretend to be a lawyer, even though you can't read, when this discussion would only be interesting if you could think like an electrical or automotive engineer. Don't worry, I know you're not up to it.
If you're going to be wrong because you can't read, don't go overboard and blame me with your illiteracy.
If they get out of it (by getting out from under the pressure) by making hybrids like the current generation, then they'll be able to say "we promised 100% hybrids, and we're delivering". Their current ads brag about how they didn't expect the current hybrids would be popular or necessary, but they're making more to please us. So they'll keep doing just that, especially if we're still pleased in 2020 with a solution visionary in 2003, but inadequate in 2020.
I don't think you're paying attention.
I didn't say they shouldn't move away from all-IC cars to more hybrids. All ICs should have "hybrid" tech or whatever else reduces its waste for better efficiency of what it must burn.
But the Toyota announcement says more than that. It says that they won't be doing any more than just hybrids. But hybrids alone aren't enough.
Toyota's statement, as I described, doesn't "set them up well to eliminate/transform it". It sets them up to get environmental concerns off their backs by whispering "hybrid" in our ear, rather than actually set up for that.
Fuelcells are just getting started. They already consume fuels like m/ethanol and even diesel and uncracked natural gas, other than just pure H2. To make definitive statements about the end solution when we're just getting out of the last technology into the new ones is foolish.
And the way you did it is obnoxious, doubly foolish.
I've got a pipeful of fuelcell fuel coming into my house over my natural gas pipe right now. I expect that compressed gas and liquids like methanol will be at least as easily distributed as is gasoline. The overall energy budget for producing and handling m/ethanol outweighs the better energy density of gasoline.
But my point is that we're getting nothing but cars that burn gasoline (even if more efficiently) through 2020 from Toyota, according to this announcement.
"Hybrid" is a hybrid of gasoline and electric power.
There is no reason to give Toyota, or any other petro/auto corp, the benefit of any doubt any more. Car makers were supposed to have sold at least 2% of their total sales in zero emissions vehicles to qualify to sell in California, by 1998. They cried an extension to 2004 or something, then got the rules scrapped entirely. Now they're locking in with the glow of hybrids. This is how they play the game, and there's no reason to think it's anything else.
stupid stupid stupid stupid
Ergo, you're stupid.
It's an interesting tactic, even if it's just a marketing claim with no results data (as you mention).
Meaningful data would examine whether attackers merely stopped attacking when seeing an Apache ID, or whether they tried attacking it as if it were Apache. And what results if the server ID'ed itself as some "unknown" (nonexistent, possibly random/unique) server type.
I'd expect the tactic to have some benefit. Just like organisms in the wild which mimic dangerous other organisms, or just obscure their tasty, vulnerable parts with masquerades.
So Toyota will sell no all-electric or other "zero emissions" cars in 2020? No H2 or fuelcell vehicles? Hybrids are better than simple internal combustion engines, but not good enough. Has Toyota and the car industry just figured out that they can avoid the really big change away from gasoline just by getting us all to go "ooh, hybrids - that's good"?
Anonymous stupid Coward still isn't done playing with their new toy, saying "stupid" over and again without anything else to say. Stupid Anonymous Coward.
Anonymous stupid Coward is too stupid to say anything but stupid repetition of the word "stupid". Now that's worthless illogic that isn't even a fallacy. It's just stupid.
Now if we can just get MS software out of our ATMs and voting machines, the country might be safe to watch TV in again.
The problem is circular logic. "If the small target reasoning is correct, then X." You can't use X to demonstrate the small target reasoning's correctness.
Finding nothing but logical fallacies in that offered argument shows it's worthless.
Unless something else is added. Like the actual stats I suggested that could dis/prove it. But though it seems a fair argument, security behavior of large, networked populations is usually surprising. So I reject its assertions until they're backed up with some rigor.
For the same reasons I would reject the counterargument that Linux's small target size makes it insecure, because Linux security depends on many people using, examining, and reporting/fixing its security holes. Until I get some evidence of that process.
So the whole line of thinking is nearly all holes, and very little substance. Which I find is nearly always the case when that kind of "the reasons are the excuse" argument is made.
The security scenario is dynamic. However, the "small target" argument is offered in response to claims that Linux is safer, not in response to claims that Linux will remain safer. Therefore that argument is void. But people offer it because it's hard to argue with, except to discount it as inappropriate to the point being made.
Making that argument about the changing size vs security needs actual statistical facts, which should be available, to back it up. I have never seen anyone show that the relative security between Windows and Linux has matched their relative userbase sizes, as they've both grown and the ratios have changed. Nor have I seen anyone explain how anomalous disproportions merely precede some tipping point some point in the future, after Windows insecurity significantly changes the userbase ratios in favor of Linux.
In other words, that argument is a weaselly way to change the subject without admitting it, and without backing it up. Which is exactly how that form of argument is always used. Because it works to fool people, even if it's invalid.
Part of the reason Ubuntu Linux is more secure than Windows, and easier to use, is that users don't browse the Internet for drivers. The Ubuntu APT system (inherited from Debian) makes a single standard commandline or a few clicks on a GUI, using one of a few interchangeable and standard installer clients, retrieve packages from secure repositories. The repositories are open like the rest of the OS, so many people have a chance to discover that something they contain is trouble, then tell everyone. While the actual package is cryptosigned to prevent middleman attacks and other interference with getting what the user asked for.
The APT system is probably the best part of Ubuntu(/Debian). The entire combo of security and easy use in the app lifecycle is perhaps the killer app for desktop Linux, now that Ubuntu has extended that to the initial OS install.
Security of one's PC isn't a moral battle between platforms, though the holy wars between zealots do look like it. The relatively small payoff for targeting Linux might be the reason that Linux is more secure, but that reason is part of the proof that the result is that Linux is more secure.
I don't know why people think that giving reasons that explain why something is true somehow reduces the importance of that truth. But we often see people defending a losing side by explaining the reasons why the other side is winning. Maybe that excuses their support for the loser, but they have just further proven why the other side is winning.
Most opinion polls are run on phone#s. Most of those surveyed are on landlines, because most listed phone#s and answered phones are landlines, not to mention their geographical cross-referencability.
So therefore most opinion polls are increasingly biased towards older, richer people. Who tend to be Republicans, even though the country is tending dramatically away from being Republicans.