It's still relevant because the original problem is still real. The cost of inventing puts the inventor at a disadvantage in the subsequent costs of exploitation, while competitors can just copy the disclosed invention and start spending to compete. There's a lot more to competing to recoup return on investment than just distribution. Including promotion, one way to address the problem of finding content in the plenty.
It's also still much better for our society to disclose invention details, rather than keep them secret for protection. It's easier to tell whether one's own work is redundant, how an invention works to one's satisfaction, where to start with meaningful improvements, what inventions are available for use.
All of which seems implicit to me in what I posted. So thanks for the opportunity to explain it more clearly to those who don't already understand the inventing business in the Internet Age.
I agree that copyright needs a complete rework. But the Constitution's provision for temporary artificial monopolies on information products to protect inventors (and authors) is still relevant. Just instead of lengthening the term, it should be even shorter. In no case should it be longer than 17 years, or a human generation, after which "content" becomes "folk art". Which is even more necessary to a working society than is payment to inventors and artists.
There is also the cost of finding the right content, now that production and distribution is so cheap. But we've started to find ways to incent and perpetuate that part of the equation. What we probably need is licensing for comarketing, like Top 40 songs used as jingles in ads, and unrestricted free sharing of that content to determine what's really the "top 40", and therefore what will sell other stuff.
Artists and inventors will continue to invent, if not as prolificly, even if they can't be sure to make money. That kind of creation is more a compulsion than a job. We'd probably have a better society, if not as profitable for creators, without any intellectual property, than with the emerging lockdown of anything intellectual as property. Of course we'll have something in between. I hope Slashdotters can look at what's happening, at what we want as producers and consumers of this "stuff", and help find a better way than the unworkable ones now taken for granted as the conventional wisdom.
You apparently didn't read the article we're discussing, which shows how this problem can be your problem, not just the publisher's. And you're not considering how the artist's problem can be my problem, when I depend on them.
You also don't seem to understand digital signatures, but that's the least of your problems. Especially if you want others to know the authenticity of the bits you publish.
This is a great lesson in a new problem we'll all increasingly face. How do I know, when I buy a copy of some content (movie, song, app, OS, whatever) that it's "legitimate"? How do I know it's not bootlegged? For years I've wondered this about music records. How do I know that Italian import 1972 Pink Floyd show is a bootleg, and not just some label I never heard of? How am I supposed to know that the Uruguayan vinyl of Hendrix at the Isle of Wight is just the product of some latenight mixing by Jimi of not enough multitracks and too many contracts?
Microsoft has made a nuisance with its "Certificate of Authenticity", but something that actually works like that seems necessary here. We deride the "broadcast flag", but what about a "copyright hash" that lets us know our transaction was made with the legitimate grantor of even limited copyrights (for our consumption)?
So much DRM is just a hassle or a ripoff that the publishers have poisoned the debate. How do we do what we need to do with DRM, without hanging ourselves from all the extra red tape it creates?
Your blather boils down to something brief enough that I'm willing to waste just a little more time schooling you (where your parents apparently failed to):
Me: "What's obvious from everything you say is that your family didn't instill enough willpower in you or your sister." You: "Oh yes, those willpower classes I skipped. Willpower 101, the class everyone should take. WTF."
I'll just note that you brought up your sister, not me, who served as more evidence against you. And that you turned my point that your family failed to train you properly into a strawman about "willpower classes". The kind of government replacement for parenting you've demanded in every post in this thread.
Any other responses to your specific points would just be repetitions of that basic format. Which means that your sloppy thinking and bad habits, your dire lack of being raised right, have made you too worthless to even bother arguing with. You're far from alone in your subverted development, but all you broken children would do better with better parents and less government nannies. You're on your own now - make the best of it, and stay out of the way of functioning adults who know better.
The largest object that I can imagine quickly is the Universe. It's taking longer to imagine the Multiverse as a single object, but it's even more fun.
I know that you didn't get addicted to that first cigarette in two ways: tobacco studies showed the industry people need more exposures to get addicted; I smoked a cigarette without getting addicted, as have many people I know who never smoked again. It is possible that you were one of the miniscule fraction of people who can get addicted to a single cigarette, but I'll take my chances.
Your drunk sister's offer of a cigarette is another failure of your parents - she was drunk (sounds like underage), was trained (or not, apparently) by your parents. But I'm talking about your acceptance of her drunken offer. You weren't trained by your parents to refuse a drunken offer, or an offered cigarettes.
I certainly do think media campaigns fare poorly against the good training from a loving parent. Just because your (apparently) relatively bad parents failed doesn't mean that others have to.
You are making excuses left and right, and throwing in a strawman. There is lots and lots of marketing of addictive substances. There are relatively few addicts. There are plenty of unqualified parents.
There are also 30 year olds who start smoking and/or drinking. Even though that is a meaningless factor when talking about parental responsibility for training kids not to start using addictive substances.
What's obvious from everything you say is that your family didn't instill enough willpower in you or your sister. So you want the government to take over and say no for you. And for everyone else. Even though the rest of us have willpower, and don't need the crutch that you do. Your arguments all boil down to your own need for external discipline that you lack internally, including your anecdotes that get the habits of the population wrong. We're not all as needy as you are. Find something that will keep you in line without putting straitjackets on the rest of us who are more sane.
We're both addicted to NYC. I don't think it's the air, unless maybe the vibrations in it. Maybe the water, though the pizza can be duplicated elsewhere, if only they flip it right.
But that's our problem. Try as it might, I can't allow the government to separate me from NYC "for my own protection".
The cost of the currency is exactly its problem. The money supply needs to vary to reflect the varying value of existing wealth (which nearly always increases).
The Western Hemisphere gold rush after Columbus' famous return delivered much more gold and silver to the Eastern Hemisphere than was previously available to everyone there. That flood in the money supply did not devalue Europe's economy into lethal deflation. Because the rest of the booty from the colonies was so vast that the real economy boomed, as it has continued to do for a half millennium. The masses finally had enough money supply to transact in actual currency, rather than barter or mere traditional exchanges. Which unleashed individual economics that had been artificially locked down by the rulers and industries controlling the money supply. The economies of Spain and "Italy", the main controllers of the new money supply, were ruined by their position as the valve on the gushing fountain.
On the other hand, OPEC countries have unleashed comparable wealth in oil without merely increasing the money supply. The actual wealth outstripped the value of gold and silver in denominating it generations ago. We replaced hard currency with arbitrary currency to manage the wealth. OPEC's wealth has similarly "fueled" the global economy to further wealth, even more widely distributed, without hard currency getting in the way.
We cannot afford to allow the scarcity of an arbitrary, but real (with real costs) currency to limit our ability to trade the wealth we now create in arbitrary jumps. If we create mobile devices that half our species can acquire for the price of a meal, which gives us Wikipedia, our favorite blogs on RSS, global conference calling all day for the price of a meal, with voluntary security cameras connected to a police "panic button", all voice activated, there's no hard currency in the world that can measure the transactions we'll exchange.
That's why the money supply is not controlled by an arbitrary decision produced by someone with half a brain. It's controlled by independent, though connected, Federal reserves around the world. Interchanged by an industry of competitive trading entrepreneurs. Governed by various kinds of governments, primarily constitutional democratic republics. And tied to banks and other holders of savings and investments. All stakeholders with balancing powers who won't allow everybody's savings to become worthless, but who want new wealth at least as much.
Money is always virtual. We struggled with inefficiencies that did more harm than good for millennia by limiting the virtuality with real supply/demand problems. Our money governance system is far from perfect, but it's better than it was when it was defined by limits rather than capabilities.
How do you know you're not addicted - to 1 cigarette a week? Have you ever gone a couple of years without the compelling desire to smoke?
Insurance companies know you smoke to their satisfaction. If they needed to cover their costs by requiring twice-weekly pisstests for a month, they certainly would.
You did not get addicted to cigarettes the first time you smoked them. Your parents, though, were negligent in not educating you and your sister that her cigarette habit was addictive. Your insurance company makes sure you pay for most of the damage you'll likely do to yourself by smoking. The government's forced labeling and taxes to compensate for the extra health/enforcement costs take care of most of the rest.
Cigarettes are not illegal, though providing them to minors who can't take full responsibility for their actions is.
Your friends, families, loved ones pain in your addiction are the harvest of seeds sown by your parents and other friends, families, loved ones. The government's work in educating and indemnifying the population are sufficient, even in our most popular deadly, costly addiction.
Everything you said is evidence for keeping government out of the business of prohibiting adults from consuming any substance we want. No matter how damaging, so long as we pay the costs of our own bad choices.
The Newton won that fight because its stability and (12x) longer battery life outpunched the Q1's victories in the other rounds.
What if they tested the Q1 running Linux. which is stable, and often gets much more computing power out of the same electric and HW than Windows? It's not quite a fair comparison, because the Q1 is a Microsoft/Intel joint project. But who says a matchup with a 10-year age difference should be fair? And who says they can't compare a Linux Q1 to a Linux Newton?
The control of Congress by Republicans has made technical votes much less representative of party positions than in the past, where power was actually shared with the minority to some degree. Since Republicans rarely let Democrats even see the bills up for vote more than a day beforehand, much less let them develop the bills in collaboration, discussion or debate, Democrats know that voting against a big bill has little value. While voting for bills fated to pass by Republican unanimity gives them a bargaining chip for actual influence elsewhere, however small. Of course that dynamic has always been true on partisan-assured votes, but the Republican Congress has applied partisan rule to unprecedented degree and scope.
To see Democratic opposition to Republican wiretapping policy, you have to look at the alternatives raised by Democrats. Which they do offer, even without hope of passage. Look at the history of wiretapping policies when Republicans had less control of the entire government, or Congress itself. Look at the degree of wiretap abuse: which Party's members are abusing the wiretap?
The differences between Republicans and Democrats on wiretapping are small relative to government vs citizen differences. But the differences between Republicans and Democrats on wiretapping are relatively large compared to differences among, say, Republican politicians, whether presidents or congressmembers. That difference is important: I'd rather have Democrats making those rules, which are generally not intolerable, than Republicans, which usually are intolerable. FWIW, I'm a member of neither Party, distrust both Parties (and the party system generally), and have complained about Democrat government intrusion in personal communications, like Clinton's "Clipper Chip" fiasco. But those pale in comparison to these NSA and VoIP wiretaps, which are Republican creatures, even though Democrats "go along to get along".
You could loop a readable "cover" stream at very high bitrate, with the encrypted bytes' bits stored in pseudorandom selections of the low bits of the cover bytes. An 80Kbps encrypted stream stored in an average of every eigth low bit (distributed pseudorandomly) would need an 8*8*80Kbps cover stream, or 5120Kbps, about 5Mbps. Which most residential broadband, even in the US, will deliver, even upload, by 2008.
Tell me how this amendment, proposed by Republican Congressmembers, produced by the Bush FBI and DoJ to govern Bush's FCC, tells us anything about Democrats? You know, the minority party that has little power under the Republican lockstep government?
Your term limits are decent interventions, but of course they're obviously needed now that Republicans, not Democrats, have forced the issue. As it was Nixon's Republican Executive which forced the Hoover issue in the FBI, and how Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is forcing the incumbent pork with his bridge to nowhere.
As always vote independently. But until Party rackets no longer game the system, voting "independent" is nearly impossible. In the meantime, vote for politicians who will govern a sustainable system, not ransack it until it drowns in a bathtub.
Goddamn Republican government has pureed the baby with the bathwater, so now we can't even wiretap actual criminals and terrorists because we're hanging ourselves from the same rope. Every attack on our rights in the name of their Terror War is another victory for the terrorists. Why do they hate America?
No, you've got it wrong. The charged particles (like electrons) move in a current because of the electric field. They don't just "happen" to be located in them - there's a causal relationship, as you state. Saying "the current has an electric field" doesn't mean the current produces the electric field, just that they're associated. I have not claimed what you are denying.
As I've been saying so often in this thread, including in my direct dismissal of Anonymous Edison, the current's presence always means an electric field is present. AE tried to deny that, so they're wrong. You have inverted my argument, and thereby pronounced AE right. That's pretty far from the reality.
You should read the other replies to my comment before you post your redundant one. While you're at it, try reading my replies that debunk your assertion.
Since you have company in your redundancy, I guess I've got my answer to how corporations will deny.
I produced a bibliographical research report in college (nominally for an aquatic ecology course for my major) on interaction between electric fields and tissue growth. The only serious research that had been performed (late 1980s) was by the Japanese nuclear power industry, on clogging cooling ducts in which power cables were also routed. They found that the fields dramatically increased growth of various species. The American and global power industries had produced no (or too few to notice) peer-revieewed research in the preceeding century on the subject, either ecologically on whole organisms or populations, or physiologically on animal tissues. Since then I have kept tabs on the research, as well as that by mobile phone companies.
I have not seen these "serious studies [that] show no health effects" which you insist have been done. I have seen studies showing bone growth directly affected by electric fields. I have seen some studies showing human tissue damage from cell phones/towers, including some featured on Slashdot this year. I have also seen news reports, not yet studied, of severe effects on people's health from other radio deployments, like recent illness in Scandanavia immediately after deploying a WiMAX test in their small town.
So let's see some of these conclusive studies that you insist exist. I'd love to know I'm safe as these fields are increasingly deployed, decreasingly regulated, everywhere in the world.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still relevant because the original problem is still real. The cost of inventing puts the inventor at a disadvantage in the subsequent costs of exploitation, while competitors can just copy the disclosed invention and start spending to compete. There's a lot more to competing to recoup return on investment than just distribution. Including promotion, one way to address the problem of finding content in the plenty.
It's also still much better for our society to disclose invention details, rather than keep them secret for protection. It's easier to tell whether one's own work is redundant, how an invention works to one's satisfaction, where to start with meaningful improvements, what inventions are available for use.
All of which seems implicit to me in what I posted. So thanks for the opportunity to explain it more clearly to those who don't already understand the inventing business in the Internet Age.
I agree that copyright needs a complete rework. But the Constitution's provision for temporary artificial monopolies on information products to protect inventors (and authors) is still relevant. Just instead of lengthening the term, it should be even shorter. In no case should it be longer than 17 years, or a human generation, after which "content" becomes "folk art". Which is even more necessary to a working society than is payment to inventors and artists.
There is also the cost of finding the right content, now that production and distribution is so cheap. But we've started to find ways to incent and perpetuate that part of the equation. What we probably need is licensing for comarketing, like Top 40 songs used as jingles in ads, and unrestricted free sharing of that content to determine what's really the "top 40", and therefore what will sell other stuff.
Artists and inventors will continue to invent, if not as prolificly, even if they can't be sure to make money. That kind of creation is more a compulsion than a job. We'd probably have a better society, if not as profitable for creators, without any intellectual property, than with the emerging lockdown of anything intellectual as property. Of course we'll have something in between. I hope Slashdotters can look at what's happening, at what we want as producers and consumers of this "stuff", and help find a better way than the unworkable ones now taken for granted as the conventional wisdom.
You apparently didn't read the article we're discussing, which shows how this problem can be your problem, not just the publisher's. And you're not considering how the artist's problem can be my problem, when I depend on them.
You also don't seem to understand digital signatures, but that's the least of your problems. Especially if you want others to know the authenticity of the bits you publish.
This is a great lesson in a new problem we'll all increasingly face. How do I know, when I buy a copy of some content (movie, song, app, OS, whatever) that it's "legitimate"? How do I know it's not bootlegged? For years I've wondered this about music records. How do I know that Italian import 1972 Pink Floyd show is a bootleg, and not just some label I never heard of? How am I supposed to know that the Uruguayan vinyl of Hendrix at the Isle of Wight is just the product of some latenight mixing by Jimi of not enough multitracks and too many contracts?
Microsoft has made a nuisance with its "Certificate of Authenticity", but something that actually works like that seems necessary here. We deride the "broadcast flag", but what about a "copyright hash" that lets us know our transaction was made with the legitimate grantor of even limited copyrights (for our consumption)?
So much DRM is just a hassle or a ripoff that the publishers have poisoned the debate. How do we do what we need to do with DRM, without hanging ourselves from all the extra red tape it creates?
Or you're using too much duct tape.
Your blather boils down to something brief enough that I'm willing to waste just a little more time schooling you (where your parents apparently failed to):
Me: " What's obvious from everything you say is that your family didn't instill enough willpower in you or your sister. "
You: "Oh yes, those willpower classes I skipped. Willpower 101, the class everyone should take. WTF."
I'll just note that you brought up your sister, not me, who served as more evidence against you. And that you turned my point that your family failed to train you properly into a strawman about "willpower classes". The kind of government replacement for parenting you've demanded in every post in this thread.
Any other responses to your specific points would just be repetitions of that basic format. Which means that your sloppy thinking and bad habits, your dire lack of being raised right, have made you too worthless to even bother arguing with. You're far from alone in your subverted development, but all you broken children would do better with better parents and less government nannies. You're on your own now - make the best of it, and stay out of the way of functioning adults who know better.
The largest object that I can imagine quickly is the Universe . It's taking longer to imagine the Multiverse as a single object, but it's even more fun.
I know that you didn't get addicted to that first cigarette in two ways: tobacco studies showed the industry people need more exposures to get addicted; I smoked a cigarette without getting addicted, as have many people I know who never smoked again. It is possible that you were one of the miniscule fraction of people who can get addicted to a single cigarette, but I'll take my chances.
Your drunk sister's offer of a cigarette is another failure of your parents - she was drunk (sounds like underage), was trained (or not, apparently) by your parents. But I'm talking about your acceptance of her drunken offer. You weren't trained by your parents to refuse a drunken offer, or an offered cigarettes.
I certainly do think media campaigns fare poorly against the good training from a loving parent. Just because your (apparently) relatively bad parents failed doesn't mean that others have to.
You are making excuses left and right, and throwing in a strawman. There is lots and lots of marketing of addictive substances. There are relatively few addicts. There are plenty of unqualified parents.
There are also 30 year olds who start smoking and/or drinking. Even though that is a meaningless factor when talking about parental responsibility for training kids not to start using addictive substances.
What's obvious from everything you say is that your family didn't instill enough willpower in you or your sister. So you want the government to take over and say no for you. And for everyone else. Even though the rest of us have willpower, and don't need the crutch that you do. Your arguments all boil down to your own need for external discipline that you lack internally, including your anecdotes that get the habits of the population wrong. We're not all as needy as you are. Find something that will keep you in line without putting straitjackets on the rest of us who are more sane.
We're both addicted to NYC. I don't think it's the air, unless maybe the vibrations in it. Maybe the water, though the pizza can be duplicated elsewhere, if only they flip it right.
But that's our problem. Try as it might, I can't allow the government to separate me from NYC "for my own protection".
The cost of the currency is exactly its problem. The money supply needs to vary to reflect the varying value of existing wealth (which nearly always increases).
The Western Hemisphere gold rush after Columbus' famous return delivered much more gold and silver to the Eastern Hemisphere than was previously available to everyone there. That flood in the money supply did not devalue Europe's economy into lethal deflation. Because the rest of the booty from the colonies was so vast that the real economy boomed, as it has continued to do for a half millennium. The masses finally had enough money supply to transact in actual currency, rather than barter or mere traditional exchanges. Which unleashed individual economics that had been artificially locked down by the rulers and industries controlling the money supply. The economies of Spain and "Italy", the main controllers of the new money supply, were ruined by their position as the valve on the gushing fountain.
On the other hand, OPEC countries have unleashed comparable wealth in oil without merely increasing the money supply. The actual wealth outstripped the value of gold and silver in denominating it generations ago. We replaced hard currency with arbitrary currency to manage the wealth. OPEC's wealth has similarly "fueled" the global economy to further wealth, even more widely distributed, without hard currency getting in the way.
We cannot afford to allow the scarcity of an arbitrary, but real (with real costs) currency to limit our ability to trade the wealth we now create in arbitrary jumps. If we create mobile devices that half our species can acquire for the price of a meal, which gives us Wikipedia, our favorite blogs on RSS, global conference calling all day for the price of a meal, with voluntary security cameras connected to a police "panic button", all voice activated, there's no hard currency in the world that can measure the transactions we'll exchange.
That's why the money supply is not controlled by an arbitrary decision produced by someone with half a brain. It's controlled by independent, though connected, Federal reserves around the world. Interchanged by an industry of competitive trading entrepreneurs. Governed by various kinds of governments, primarily constitutional democratic republics. And tied to banks and other holders of savings and investments. All stakeholders with balancing powers who won't allow everybody's savings to become worthless, but who want new wealth at least as much.
Money is always virtual. We struggled with inefficiencies that did more harm than good for millennia by limiting the virtuality with real supply/demand problems. Our money governance system is far from perfect, but it's better than it was when it was defined by limits rather than capabilities.
How do you know you're not addicted - to 1 cigarette a week? Have you ever gone a couple of years without the compelling desire to smoke?
Insurance companies know you smoke to their satisfaction. If they needed to cover their costs by requiring twice-weekly pisstests for a month, they certainly would.
You did not get addicted to cigarettes the first time you smoked them. Your parents, though, were negligent in not educating you and your sister that her cigarette habit was addictive. Your insurance company makes sure you pay for most of the damage you'll likely do to yourself by smoking. The government's forced labeling and taxes to compensate for the extra health/enforcement costs take care of most of the rest.
Cigarettes are not illegal, though providing them to minors who can't take full responsibility for their actions is.
Your friends, families, loved ones pain in your addiction are the harvest of seeds sown by your parents and other friends, families, loved ones. The government's work in educating and indemnifying the population are sufficient, even in our most popular deadly, costly addiction.
Everything you said is evidence for keeping government out of the business of prohibiting adults from consuming any substance we want. No matter how damaging, so long as we pay the costs of our own bad choices.
The Newton won that fight because its stability and (12x) longer battery life outpunched the Q1's victories in the other rounds.
What if they tested the Q1 running Linux. which is stable, and often gets much more computing power out of the same electric and HW than Windows? It's not quite a fair comparison, because the Q1 is a Microsoft/Intel joint project. But who says a matchup with a 10-year age difference should be fair? And who says they can't compare a Linux Q1 to a Linux Newton?
The control of Congress by Republicans has made technical votes much less representative of party positions than in the past, where power was actually shared with the minority to some degree. Since Republicans rarely let Democrats even see the bills up for vote more than a day beforehand, much less let them develop the bills in collaboration, discussion or debate, Democrats know that voting against a big bill has little value. While voting for bills fated to pass by Republican unanimity gives them a bargaining chip for actual influence elsewhere, however small. Of course that dynamic has always been true on partisan-assured votes, but the Republican Congress has applied partisan rule to unprecedented degree and scope.
To see Democratic opposition to Republican wiretapping policy, you have to look at the alternatives raised by Democrats. Which they do offer, even without hope of passage. Look at the history of wiretapping policies when Republicans had less control of the entire government, or Congress itself. Look at the degree of wiretap abuse: which Party's members are abusing the wiretap?
The differences between Republicans and Democrats on wiretapping are small relative to government vs citizen differences. But the differences between Republicans and Democrats on wiretapping are relatively large compared to differences among, say, Republican politicians, whether presidents or congressmembers. That difference is important: I'd rather have Democrats making those rules, which are generally not intolerable, than Republicans, which usually are intolerable. FWIW, I'm a member of neither Party, distrust both Parties (and the party system generally), and have complained about Democrat government intrusion in personal communications, like Clinton's "Clipper Chip" fiasco. But those pale in comparison to these NSA and VoIP wiretaps, which are Republican creatures, even though Democrats "go along to get along".
You could loop a readable "cover" stream at very high bitrate, with the encrypted bytes' bits stored in pseudorandom selections of the low bits of the cover bytes. An 80Kbps encrypted stream stored in an average of every eigth low bit (distributed pseudorandomly) would need an 8*8*80Kbps cover stream, or 5120Kbps, about 5Mbps. Which most residential broadband, even in the US, will deliver, even upload, by 2008.
Tell me how this amendment, proposed by Republican Congressmembers, produced by the Bush FBI and DoJ to govern Bush's FCC, tells us anything about Democrats? You know, the minority party that has little power under the Republican lockstep government?
Your term limits are decent interventions, but of course they're obviously needed now that Republicans, not Democrats, have forced the issue. As it was Nixon's Republican Executive which forced the Hoover issue in the FBI, and how Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is forcing the incumbent pork with his bridge to nowhere.
As always vote independently. But until Party rackets no longer game the system, voting "independent" is nearly impossible. In the meantime, vote for politicians who will govern a sustainable system, not ransack it until it drowns in a bathtub.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Well, I guess rightwing TrollMods aren't so much "silent" as anonymous. Still fascists, though.
Goddamn Republican government has pureed the baby with the bathwater, so now we can't even wiretap actual criminals and terrorists because we're hanging ourselves from the same rope. Every attack on our rights in the name of their Terror War is another victory for the terrorists. Why do they hate America?
It's a lot more likely that millions of people will encrypt our VoIP streams than that we will all scramble our POTS conversations.
Where's our Java applet with SIP over SSL?
Informative reply.
No, you've got it wrong. The charged particles (like electrons) move in a current because of the electric field. They don't just "happen" to be located in them - there's a causal relationship, as you state. Saying "the current has an electric field" doesn't mean the current produces the electric field, just that they're associated. I have not claimed what you are denying.
As I've been saying so often in this thread, including in my direct dismissal of Anonymous Edison, the current's presence always means an electric field is present. AE tried to deny that, so they're wrong. You have inverted my argument, and thereby pronounced AE right. That's pretty far from the reality.
You should read the other replies to my comment before you post your redundant one. While you're at it, try reading my replies that debunk your assertion.
Since you have company in your redundancy, I guess I've got my answer to how corporations will deny.
True - thanks for correcting my conflation of those two parallel products into one company.
I produced a bibliographical research report in college (nominally for an aquatic ecology course for my major) on interaction between electric fields and tissue growth. The only serious research that had been performed (late 1980s) was by the Japanese nuclear power industry, on clogging cooling ducts in which power cables were also routed. They found that the fields dramatically increased growth of various species. The American and global power industries had produced no (or too few to notice) peer-revieewed research in the preceeding century on the subject, either ecologically on whole organisms or populations, or physiologically on animal tissues. Since then I have kept tabs on the research, as well as that by mobile phone companies.
I have not seen these "serious studies [that] show no health effects" which you insist have been done. I have seen studies showing bone growth directly affected by electric fields. I have seen some studies showing human tissue damage from cell phones/towers, including some featured on Slashdot this year. I have also seen news reports, not yet studied, of severe effects on people's health from other radio deployments, like recent illness in Scandanavia immediately after deploying a WiMAX test in their small town.
So let's see some of these conclusive studies that you insist exist. I'd love to know I'm safe as these fields are increasingly deployed, decreasingly regulated, everywhere in the world.