There's plenty of precedent. Just about all the major figures in the US civil rights movement, for example, were under government monitoring - they had quite the file on MLK, considering him a dangerous subversive.
No, it won't, for a number of reasons: - The power of marketing. Commercial interests can throw enough money at promoting anything to make it popular, at least for a time. Who wants to go see Obscure Indie Horror Flick that they read about on facebook when there is massive television advert promotion for Buckets of CGI Blood VII - and it's being featured on talk shows, endorsed by celebrities, and appears on billboards?
- Incidential infringement. It happens, a lot. The greatest source of clipart today is google image search. People frequently grab popular songs to remix or dub over their own videos for youtube. Typically this is done by people who just don't care about copyright and know next to nothing about it.
- Closing the wagons. If creative commons every seriously becomes a threat to entrenched interests, do you expect them to just take it lying down? No, they'll use every dirty trick in the book! You'll probably find informal agreements abound to exclude the upstarts, making it very difficult for them to be promoted outside of social networking. Radio stations will likewise refuse to play creative commons music, for fear of being blacklisted by the major labels they depend upon a lot more heavily. Same goes in software - look at the measures Microsoft has taken over the last twenty years to fight linux with deliberate incompatibilities and aggressive business tactics, and continues to take with such measures as Secure Boot. They've not been entirely victorious, but they've certainly made linux advocates and developers fight hard for every scrap of ground they have gained.
CC may well bring on a real revolution in popular culture, but it's certainly not inevitable.
No, that's how it works. It's generally accepted that withholding rights from some is required to ensure public safety or other collective benefit. That's why prisons exist. It just has to be done with suitable safeguards (Right to legal advice, right to a fair trial, right to see the evidence against them, etc) to make sure that no person is falsely convicted. Doesn't always work out so well in practice, but no society has found a better solution yet.
'Cult' isn't too unfair a description of some of the twelve steps programs. They are religious in nature. The twelve steps can be summed up in four: Accept you have a problem, accept you can't overcome it alone, accept that only God can help you and all others are powerless, beg for the almighty to grant you strength and aid.
Some versions replage God with some vague higher spiritual power who is explicitly not God, so they can accept court-ordered attendees. There would be constitutional issues with courts ordering someone to attend a church, so they have to keep the religion vague enough to deny for legal purposes.
I've had dreams consisting entirely of text conversations with friends. It usually ends with the realisation that I'm dreaming, and the other end of the conversation is generated internally - then the realisation that this means whatever I say to them, they won't remember. Generally good for a bit of fun.
Same in the UK. I'd add some blame to the media too. Scare stories drive high ratings, and they love a good sex scandal for the same reason. They've so saturated their coverage that they've got much of the UK on a pedophile witchhunt now - parents are terrified to let their children associate even with other children unless their parents have been subject to a criminal background check first.
That used to be common practice, back in the Z80 to 286 era. Stick form (SIMM, then DIMM) is just more convenient to work with. Look how small the pins are on a surface-mount chip - if those chips were big enough to socket, they'd be unweildy. Plus the stick form connects the whole bus at once, so it's fewer dust-prone connections to make than each individual chip together would have.
We did. The government ignored us. What are we going to do about it? None of the major parties have came out in open opposition to the filter, they just support it to varying degrees, and Cameron is using the sneaky political trick of using threats of a law to force 'voluntary' filtering so there isn't even going to be a real debate in parliament.
I'm not so sure about cows. They may be highly intelligent, but they don't show it - they have been selectively bred to be quite passive and docile, for easier handling. Content to just stand around in a field, eating grass and remaining quite unresponsive to the world.
Easier solution: Just assume *everyone* is ok with donation, unless they have previously expressed their desire otherwise. Allow them to do so via register, carried document, a veto by the next-of-kin or (For the really worried) a 'hands off my organs' tattoo. Hospitals don't take organs from unidentified patients anyway, as there is no medical history. They might be carrying bloodborne disease.
Performance. On a firewall/filter for a major network there could be millions of packets per second. On a smaller scale routers running linux often use very low-power and thus low-performance hardware while still handling gigabit interfaces. No cycles to spare for running an interpreter or even parsing complex rules with variable-length fields.
Because it's electrically so delicate that you can't keep bit sync when shoving such high frequencies through a slot connector. The price of higher bandwidth, in both the analog and digital senses.
Getting the organ *out* is easy. Getting it back in, not so much. It happens, yes, but as I said - it's the domain of sophisticated organised crime operations. It's not easy to talk a hopsital, or even a private clinic, into carrying out illegal operations.
A better solution to the organ shortage would be to simply move to a system of assumed consent: Everyone is assumed to be an organ donor by default, unless they have explicitly registered their objection prior to death. This isn't likely to happen though, as a lot of religious groups oppose it.
And before someone suggests it can be done on the cheap: No, it can't. Black market organ buying does happen in some countries, but even there they have to use a real hospital.
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty of precedent. Just about all the major figures in the US civil rights movement, for example, were under government monitoring - they had quite the file on MLK, considering him a dangerous subversive.
That's more the American model. UK prisons are still mostly government-owned and -run.
Most countries have some national counterpart. Here in the UK, we have the BPI - our counterpart to the RIAA, and just as involved in lobbying.
No, it won't, for a number of reasons:
- The power of marketing. Commercial interests can throw enough money at promoting anything to make it popular, at least for a time. Who wants to go see Obscure Indie Horror Flick that they read about on facebook when there is massive television advert promotion for Buckets of CGI Blood VII - and it's being featured on talk shows, endorsed by celebrities, and appears on billboards?
- Incidential infringement. It happens, a lot. The greatest source of clipart today is google image search. People frequently grab popular songs to remix or dub over their own videos for youtube. Typically this is done by people who just don't care about copyright and know next to nothing about it.
- Closing the wagons. If creative commons every seriously becomes a threat to entrenched interests, do you expect them to just take it lying down? No, they'll use every dirty trick in the book! You'll probably find informal agreements abound to exclude the upstarts, making it very difficult for them to be promoted outside of social networking. Radio stations will likewise refuse to play creative commons music, for fear of being blacklisted by the major labels they depend upon a lot more heavily. Same goes in software - look at the measures Microsoft has taken over the last twenty years to fight linux with deliberate incompatibilities and aggressive business tactics, and continues to take with such measures as Secure Boot. They've not been entirely victorious, but they've certainly made linux advocates and developers fight hard for every scrap of ground they have gained.
CC may well bring on a real revolution in popular culture, but it's certainly not inevitable.
No, that's how it works. It's generally accepted that withholding rights from some is required to ensure public safety or other collective benefit. That's why prisons exist. It just has to be done with suitable safeguards (Right to legal advice, right to a fair trial, right to see the evidence against them, etc) to make sure that no person is falsely convicted. Doesn't always work out so well in practice, but no society has found a better solution yet.
Can you find me a government which does not meet at least two of these criteria? Reasonably-sized: At least a couple of million citizens.
'Cult' isn't too unfair a description of some of the twelve steps programs. They are religious in nature. The twelve steps can be summed up in four: Accept you have a problem, accept you can't overcome it alone, accept that only God can help you and all others are powerless, beg for the almighty to grant you strength and aid.
Some versions replage God with some vague higher spiritual power who is explicitly not God, so they can accept court-ordered attendees. There would be constitutional issues with courts ordering someone to attend a church, so they have to keep the religion vague enough to deny for legal purposes.
Any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I've had dreams consisting entirely of text conversations with friends. It usually ends with the realisation that I'm dreaming, and the other end of the conversation is generated internally - then the realisation that this means whatever I say to them, they won't remember. Generally good for a bit of fun.
The DSM does recognise a general catagory of "behavioral addiction." It's considered quite distinct from the more familiar substance dependency.
Same in the UK. I'd add some blame to the media too. Scare stories drive high ratings, and they love a good sex scandal for the same reason. They've so saturated their coverage that they've got much of the UK on a pedophile witchhunt now - parents are terrified to let their children associate even with other children unless their parents have been subject to a criminal background check first.
That used to be common practice, back in the Z80 to 286 era. Stick form (SIMM, then DIMM) is just more convenient to work with. Look how small the pins are on a surface-mount chip - if those chips were big enough to socket, they'd be unweildy. Plus the stick form connects the whole bus at once, so it's fewer dust-prone connections to make than each individual chip together would have.
I tried to read it at work earlier, but our filter blocked the article.
You can mod that funny if you want, but it's true.
Ezekiel 23. Verse 20 gets the most attention, but read the whole thing to get the whole sex-and-violence story. Caution: Involves sexual mutilation.
We did. The government ignored us. What are we going to do about it? None of the major parties have came out in open opposition to the filter, they just support it to varying degrees, and Cameron is using the sneaky political trick of using threats of a law to force 'voluntary' filtering so there isn't even going to be a real debate in parliament.
"Better allow an occasional exposure of children to pornography"
It's not safe to say that these days. People have lost their jobs for saying things like that.
Technically this is more mammaling than fishing.
I'm not so sure about cows. They may be highly intelligent, but they don't show it - they have been selectively bred to be quite passive and docile, for easier handling. Content to just stand around in a field, eating grass and remaining quite unresponsive to the world.
Yes, but not *nearly* so much. Why do you think the mascot for all endangered animals is the panda? It's cute.
While the liberals tend to live in a fantasy world where nature is paradise and every animal yearns to live free.
Liberals, conservatives... those who pick a side on such simplistic classification may not be the brightest of individuals.
Easier solution: Just assume *everyone* is ok with donation, unless they have previously expressed their desire otherwise. Allow them to do so via register, carried document, a veto by the next-of-kin or (For the really worried) a 'hands off my organs' tattoo. Hospitals don't take organs from unidentified patients anyway, as there is no medical history. They might be carrying bloodborne disease.
Performance. On a firewall/filter for a major network there could be millions of packets per second. On a smaller scale routers running linux often use very low-power and thus low-performance hardware while still handling gigabit interfaces. No cycles to spare for running an interpreter or even parsing complex rules with variable-length fields.
Because it's electrically so delicate that you can't keep bit sync when shoving such high frequencies through a slot connector. The price of higher bandwidth, in both the analog and digital senses.
Getting the organ *out* is easy. Getting it back in, not so much. It happens, yes, but as I said - it's the domain of sophisticated organised crime operations. It's not easy to talk a hopsital, or even a private clinic, into carrying out illegal operations.
A better solution to the organ shortage would be to simply move to a system of assumed consent: Everyone is assumed to be an organ donor by default, unless they have explicitly registered their objection prior to death. This isn't likely to happen though, as a lot of religious groups oppose it.
And before someone suggests it can be done on the cheap: No, it can't. Black market organ buying does happen in some countries, but even there they have to use a real hospital.