So, let's say that your patent troll is a single corporation with no resources other than a single patent.
Said corporation then hires a lawyer who agrees to take the case on contingency and files suit against Deep Pockets Company. Two years later, Deep Pockets Company wins the case and has the patent declared invalid, after having paid out a cool $2 million in legal fees.
Deep Pockets Company now demands its legal fees from the patent troll.
There's only one problem. The patent troll's only resource was a patent that is now worthless. It has no money. What benefit does your "loser pays" law get you in this case?
You can refuse to accept it all you want. But the fact is that somebody with training and experience in ANY area will always know more than somebody without the same training and experience.
(Caveat: I disagree with your suggestion that a lawyer is a "wizard" and also disagree with your attempt to equate the reasonable suggestion that somebody hire a lawyer to do complex legal work with the idea that "the legal system... can only be interpreted by some wizard class.")
If you wanted to design a new jet airplane, would you refuse to hire a trained expert engineer because the laws of physics are (theoretically) observable by anybody? How about police work -- do you think that any guy with a concealed weapon permit will have better instincts than a trained police officer with years on the force?
The "legal system we are all obligated to conform to" includes many disparate parts. No individual -- and certainly no lawyer -- is an expert in all of them. You describe the system's complexity and its centuries of growth and specialization as "convoluted." I would describe it as a feature of our democratic system -- as the world around us changes and modernizes, the law must grow and adapt as well.
You're more than welcome to suggest that the system's complexity makes us "subjugated by the legal system." Then again, somebody who grew up with MS-DOS and SunOS 4 is also more than welcome to make the ridiculous suggestion that modern day users are "subjugated" by Windows Vista and/or Linux because of the complexity of those systems.
The power to create law DOES derive from the people. You have the right to vote for your legislators. And to run for office. You also have the right to go to law school and learn about the basic mechanics of how the "system" works. The fact that you have made a personal choice not to do any of these things is not a fault of "the system."
And the fact is that a patent attorney with 20 years experience writing and/or litigating patents will know a thing or two about the system that you can't possibly know without his or her experience.
I see that there have already been some posts about going into law. I'll try not to repeat what's already been said. Here's my own advice, based on good experience:
(1) Work for a few years doing something CS-related. Whether coding, sysadmin work, user interfaces, or software design, pick something and stick with it for at least a few years. The benefit of doing this is that you'll get invaluable real-world experience and you'll learn what you like and what you don't like. If you're lucky and good at what you do, you might also get some exposure to the business side of CS.
(2) If you're happy with what you're doing and you believe that there's a high potential for growth, stay in your field and look no further; you've found your dream, why break it?
(3) Keep yourself informed about legal issues related to CS. These may be intellectual property, privacy, computer security, computer crime, or even HIPAA/FTC/FCC/securities regulation. Think about how the knowledge you've gained from work has help you understand the issues better.
(4) Take the LSAT. Apply to law schools. As much as it pains me to say so, you MUST be aware of how a law school's ranking affects your ability to get a good job out of school. If you go to Yale, then a good job is virtually guaranteed. It's certainly possible to get a good job out of St. John's and Brooklyn, but the risk is also higher. For some schools, you must be at the top of your class. (FYI, the more technical your skillset, the more likely that a patent prosecution firm will overlook your grades in favor of your experience -- one of the few exceptions to the general rule that LSAT/undergraduate grades/law school grades define your future.)
(5) Again, think LONG and HARD about the financial risk you'll be taking by returning to school. You may not have an income for 3 years.
With all that said, I personally find computer law to be an incredibly fascinating field. A CS background allows me to talk with computer professionals and ask the right questions. It's my job to translate computer knowledge into plain English for a judge and jury. I love the logical puzzles -- both technical and non-technical -- that I need to solve every day. I have the ability to see much more of the "big picture" that CS programmers rarely see, and I hope to eventually apply that knowledge to important policy questions.
Assuming copyright law granted 14-year exclusive rights:
The copyright on version 1 would expire 14 years afterwards.
Whether or not version 2 had a copyright would depend on whether it was a new work. For example, changing a single word in a 100,000 word novel wouldn't be copyrightable. But, making a larger change -- for example, the way that Stephen King released a new version of "The Stand" with 200 extra pages of material -- would be copyrightable, probably as a derivative work. The new version's copyright would have 14 years on its own.
But keep in mind that in the period of time where the copyright on version 1 had expired but the copyright on version 2 had not, somebody would be perfectly within their rights to publish version 1 without your permission.
Whenever the copyright expires on Disney's work, it would work the same way. For example, "Mickey Mouse" does not have a copyright. A *work* with Mickey Mouse does have a copyright. Therefore, when the copyright on a work published in 1940 with Mickey Mouse expires, you'll have the right to do whatever you want with that 1940 work, but you will *not* be able to do whatever you want with videos of "The Mickey Mouse Club" from decades later.
This is nothing new. William Landes and Richard Posner (two U Chicago Law Professors) made almost the exact same claim in 2002. See it for yourself here: Indefinitely Renewable Copyright
(1) If you want to keep "cherished family poems" from entering the public domain, just don't put them in the public domain. I have no problem with making it illegal to invade somebody's privacy that way. Obviously, once the damage is done, it's done, but even basic copyright should allow a number of years to make it difficult to disseminate.
(2) You are absolutely right that international treaties (TRIPS, etc.) are a thorn in the side to legal experimentation that tries to make a useful balance between encouraging creativity of creators and limiting the amount of time that those rights can be held.
(3) Based on Landes & Posner's article, most copyrights lose value at 15 years. Why not set a guaranteed copyright period of 15 years, and then charge $2 for the 16th year. Each year (or some other period) afterwards, the amount of money required would double. This way, in the first few years (or decades), the formality of re-registration would just be the owner's way of confirming that they still cared about keeping the item out of the public domain. As the fee reached higher amounts, the owner would begin needing to make economic (or privacy) decisions. Even Disney won't pay $4,000,000 to extend a copyright that isn't pulling in cash. On the other hand, this lets big companies like Disney try to milk their product for a few more years, if they so chose.
Again -- if you want to keep cherished family poems out of the system, just don't publicize them and make the penalties for unauthorized publication sufficiently high.
Actually, a good economic argument does exist for perpetual copyright... but that same argument would require copyright owners to perpetually pay fees to re-register their works so that the "deadwood" -- works with worthless copyrights -- would fall into the public domain within very short amounts of time, sometimes within 10 years of creation. Thus, the 0.01% of works that are actually worth money 100 years after their creation would continue to be subject to copyright laws, while the 99.99% that isn't making any amount of money would fall into the public domain.
For a full economic analysis see this article (for which I'm copying the abstract):
"Abstract: In this paper we raise questions concerning the widely accepted proposition that economic efficiency requires that copyright protection be limited in its duration (often shorter than the current term). We show that just as an absence of property rights in tangible property would lead to inefficiencies, so intangible works that fall into the public domain may be inefficiently used because of congestion externalities and impaired incentives to invest in maintaining and exploiting these works. Although a system of indefinite renewals could lead to perpetual copyrights or very long terms, this is unlikely. Our empirical analysis indicates that (1) fewer than 11 percent of the copyrights registered between 1883 and 1964 were renewed at the end of their 28-year term, even though the cost of renewal was small; (2) copyrights are subject to significant depreciation and have an expected or average life of only about 15 years; and (3) copyright registration and renewals are highly responsive to economic incentives for the shorter the expected life of a copyright and the higher the registration and renewal fees, the less likely are both registration and renewal. This in turn suggests that a system of modestly higher registration and renewal fees than at present, a relatively short initial term (20 years or so), and a right of indefinite renewal (possibly subject to an overall maximum term of protection of say 100 years) would cause a large number of copyrighted works to be returned to the public domain quite soon after they were created. A further benefit of indefinite renewal is that it would largely eliminate the rent-seeking problem that is created by the fact that owners (and users) of valuable copyrights that are soon to expire will expend real resources on trying to persuade (dissuade) Congress to extend the term."
You need much more information than you've given to go into this decision, but how about trying law?
As a computer professional, you already have an analytical mind, so you're a step ahead. Assuming that you have very good non-computer writing skills, it might be a good career move. You'll be working among smart people, and -- because the law changes every single day -- you need to constantly learn new things. And if you have worked as a technical kind of person, patent law might be a good choice because too many lawyers are afraid of it.
I will say that this is not the career move for everybody. If your reading and writing skills are not really good, you should look for a different field. You also need to do well on the LSAT and get into a good school. Be realistic -- if you don't go to a "top" school, then either you're at the top of your class or you're not getting one of those super-high-paying law jobs. Know the employment statistics *before* you accept a school's offer. Ask probing questions. Realize that once you get into law school that your life will revolve around schoolwork for the next three years; it is *much* harder than undergrad. (Don't even bother doing a 4-year part time or evening program.)
But if you think you're up for the challenge, go for it!
I'm saying that if somebody really wants my dirty underwear -- and a used pocket knife -- let them have it. The only stuff that goes under the plane are things that I'm not afraid to lose, such as clothing, spare reading material, etc. Anything valuable or personal is in my daypack which stays with me. For the sake of convenience for not having to buy a new knife and cookset, I'll stuff it under the plane. And my insurance (or the airline) will cover it if it's lost. (You do buy insurance, don't you?)
Strangely enough, the pocket knife I'm referring to was actually "lost" by an airline recently. I got a check in the mail for its value just a few weeks later.
While I think this advice is useful in a theoretical sense, it is practically impossible (or at the very least extremely difficult) not to check luggage these days.
One of the more important items you can have as a backpacker is a swiss army knife or a leatherman. These are virtually impossible to carry on board a plane these days. Additionally, because my mini-cookset includes a small knife, I need to check it.
I'm not sure where the above poster has traveled to, but I have never been asked for a bribe in order to get my luggage back, and I have been to every continent except for South America and Antarctica. Mind you, I have had something valuable stolen -- while in the hands of a tour operator in a 1st world country -- but never at the hands of the local baggage check or authorities.
Mind you, if you decide to buy drugs from a local in some middle-of-nowhere town, then you may deserve what's coming to you -- the seller will take your money, give you the drugs, and then helpfully inform the local police in return for some of the money you'll pay to get out of jail -- but that's quite a different thing.
I suspect that the payphone situation in Asia is probably even more dire than in Europe, and that getting a GSM SIM would be even easier and cheaper, so that's definitely the route I'd go.
3-4 years ago, many internet cafes -- including those in 3rd world countries in Asia -- doubled as phone centers where for US$0.25/minute you could talk over the internet to relatives in the US. I can't recall ever using a phone booth, except in airports.
I'm going to second the recommendation for traveling light.
Take as *little* as possible, including clothing. Do laundry three times a week if you need to. Any electronic goodies you take with you should be the kinds of things that are absolutely necessary and fit in your pocket and/or daypack that you have with you all the time.
I did something like this 3-4 years ago. The most expensive items I had with me were (1) Malaria medication, (2) digital camera and accessories, (3) mobile phone. Take the bare necessities only, and you'll have a better time.
For what it's worth, the one thing I wish I had taken was a small portable hard drive with plenty of disk space. Because I didn't have one, I was stuck transferring my photos onto CDs every few days, burning two copies, mailing one home, and keeping the other.
I can't imagine having a laptop computer with me. If you're planning on staying in hostels, there will be plenty of times when you need to leave all your belongings in a room with 10 strangers. People are generally trustworthy, but there's no need to tempt them. If you have expensive items that you can't afford to lose, you're going to want to have them on your person at all times -- and you will not want a laptop with you when you're climbing a mountain. Even if you don't stay in dorm rooms, your laptop may get ruined anyways, especially if the canoe you're in decides to flip (thankfully a mobile phone and camera each fit in little plastic baggies).
Outside the United States, internet cafes are everywhere. Use them. (Of course, be aware of security issues / keyloggers.) Travel as light as you possibly can and enjoy the world outside your computer.
The issue in this case is whether telecommuting is the same as working in an office. My point was that a state which you do not live in *does* have the right to tax your income under certain circumstances, when it believes that the income was earned/generated inside of that state... regardless of whether or not you can vote in that state. In this case, it appears that NY believes that income earned via telecommuting to a NY office is the equivalent of income earned while sitting at a desk within that office.
I live in NY but used to work in NJ. My employer was required to take out NJ state tax from my paycheck because my employer was in NJ. At the end of the year, I would file both a NY and a NJ tax return, with payments to one state being credited to the other (a little more complicated than that, but that's basically what happened in the end).
So, this isn't taxation without representation. If I didn't want to pay NJ taxes, my choice was... work somewhere else.
While I'm not voicing an opinion about the current tax system at issue, the reasoning seems pretty simple: The employee is "technically" working out of the NY office even as he sits at home. My guess is that if his company opened an office in his home state, then he could "work" from that office and pay his own home state taxes instead. The problem seems to be that courts are trying to figure out how to apply this newfangled idea of telecommuting while still preserving their ability to collect taxes for services provided to the companies and residents. There will probably be other court cases here. Many may conflict with these issues. And eventually, it may be decided by legislation. This certainly is not the last word on the subject.
OK, just for sake of argument let's say that there are three frames of reference (perspectives) for reality:
1. The way that Orbitz would like to interpret US contract law for their Terms and Conditions.
2. The way that you would like to interpret US contract law for Orbitz's Terms and Conditions.
3. Your view of how Orbitz's Terms and conditions should be interpreted in a Perfect World (TM) regardless of US law or any other law.
It was quite clear from your posting that you were not looking at reality from perspective #1, and in fact your were trying to disagree with it. I read your comment about "I don't know how the law actually is, I just think that's how it should be" to mean that you didn't know much about the law on these issues, but thought it should turn out the way you described in perspective #2. So, I responded in kind, assuming that you were trying to described something with a basis in "our" reality.
Obviously, I misunderstood what you meant, and you were describing a "perfect world" scenario. Unfortunately, I can't agree with that either.
> First, Orbitz should be allowed to do whatever they want. This includes prohibiting deep linking.
Orbitz's right to do "whatever they want" stops at my right to do "whatever I want." In the real world, *nobody* can do "whatever they want." because something -- law, morality, religion -- needs to define that boundary between me and you so that it's clear for all of us who want to play on fair ground.
You might respond that Orbitz can do whatever it wants as long it doesn't affect me directly, but that's almost impossible unless Orbitz lives in a world by itself. Another counter-example: Let's say Orbitz has an online contract which is in English except that the last line saying "you hereby agree to give Orbitz your first born child" is written in Arabic. Since I can't read Arabic, I click (or sign) my agreement, thinking that the Arabic words were just a pretty squiggly line. Should this be enforceable? You *did* sign the agreement and nobody forced you to. If you agree that the contract is unenforceable, then Orbitz *cannot* do whatever it wants.
On to your next claim:
> Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
I will assume that your proposition is that contracts may never be enforceable unless in writing and signed. Again, I disagree. This would make commerce impossibly difficult. Imagine: Some kid comes to your front door and offers to shovel your driveway. After 5 minutes of bargaining, you verbally agree on paying him $50 for his work. He performs the work, and asks you for your money. Do you now have the right to tell him to get lost because he didn't ask for it in writing? Should the law be able to back him up, or should you be able to legally refuse payment?/ephraim
> First, Orbitz should be allowed to do whatever they want. This includes prohibiting deep linking.
Wrong. You can't put "whatever you want" into a contract. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors. (The summary in that link is not so great, but it should give you the basic idea.) Many issues come into play here: notice, unconscionability, duress, etc.
> Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
Wrong again. The general rule is that contracts do *not* need to be signed. For that matter, most contracts need not even be in writing.
While I think the clause is ridiculous and possibly unenforceable, you're not going to get anywhere by making bogus legal arguments./ephraim
This is speaking as a Unix SA only, so I don't know how well it will apply to pure programmers or other professions.
There are two main benefits to having a college degree on your resume: getting your foot in the door and getting a good salary.
Having a well-known college/university on your resume will open many more doors than if you don't have the degree, or if you have it from a lesser college/university. Simply put: You are more likely to get interviews if you have a top university on your resume than if you don't. That being said, the value of a name decreases over your lifetime with experience. Once you're known in the field (and believe me, the world of SAs is smaller than it appears to be; corollary: never, ever burn your bridges), your (people) networking skills will get you farther than the degree. However, the degree and name in your pocket will help for those first few years when you're a nobody, and make your resume sail a little closer to the top of the huge pile on somebody's desk.
(Note that the name of the university you went to affects much more than just CS type jobs... some law firms will reject resumes outright if the person didn't graduate from a top 10 school.)
In terms of market worth, having a degree will get you a better salary. My impression has been that the name of your school will not necessarily affect your market worth, but having a degree -- any degree -- will affect your salary big time.
Example: I used to work with a guy who had dropped out of college and started work as a night operator for a major finance firm. Over 3 years, he worked his way up to senior SA. Out of all the guys I worked with, he was the smartest and hardest working of the bunch, but because he didn't have a piece of paper from any university, his salary was about 60% of the market rate for those with a college degree.
IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power.
The election of judges is one of the worst possible ways to "make things better" in this country.
Our government has a system of "checks and balances" between the executive (The President), legislative (Congress), and judiciary (Supreme Court) branches. The best way is for "The People" to elect the the executive and legislative branches of government, and have judges appointed as some type of compromise between those branches. This is what currently happens with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, many states have been moving towards a system that makes judges an elected office, just like governors and state representatives. This is a horrible, horrible idea.
For our system of checks and balances to work, judges must be impartial regarding issues that come before them. Sure, judges are human beings too, with political beliefs, preferences, and different methods for interpreting the law. Obviously, these preferences will affect the way judges look at cases. However, by nature of an appointment, a judge is not required to pander to rule of the mob and can work independently without fear of losing their jobs because of an unpopular decision. This is the purpose of having them as a check to unbridled power in the executive and legislative branches.
Unfortunately, if you make judges elected, then you throw away the whole purpose of having them as checks and balances to mob rule by the legislative and executive branches. Rulings become less based on law (which, btw, is frequently written by those other branches) and more based on what it takes to get re-elected.
Having judges pander to the mob that will re-elect them is an incredibly dumb idea simply because they no longer have the freedom they need to operate as a check and balance. Also, how can you work as an impartial arbitrator, as a judge, you take campaign contributions and know that a "wrong" vote might bury your career, even if that vote is just following the law as written by the legislature or enshrined in the Constitution? If a judge accepts $100,000 from Microsoft for his campaign, do you want that judge deciding a case where you sue Microsoft over breach of warranty?
Other politicians besides judges accept campaign contributions. But those other politicians have no obligation to be fair and impartial to all who come before them. Judges, however, must frequently decide questions of law in ways that might not be popular, but are "right" because of the way that the law has been written. If this happens, blame your legislator or the framers of the Constitution. Or, better yet, blame the voters who put those people in power. Don't blame the judges for simply doing their job and following the law.
You don't appear to have an e-mail address on the article's web site, so I sent this to the general address at the magazine.
In any case, I am reposting my comments here:
======== Hi! I am writing in response to Travis Daub's "Cost of Cyberliving" on your website at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_i d=2594
One year ago, I visited New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Japan. I have also been to various parts of Europe in the past 3 years.
Unfortunately, for those countries with which I am familiar, your numbers do not appear to accurately reflect the prices that I have paid for internet access.
In the case of New Zealand, I paid NZ$2 (US$1.10) in city-center cafes in Auckland, while the most I ever paid was NZ$8 (US$4.40) at remote Fox Glacier Village. The average price was probably NZ$3.50/hour (US$2).
In Australia, prices were similar, with most cafes charging AU$3-AU$4/hour (US$2 - US$2.65).
In Thailand, prices in major tourist areas were about 30-40 Baht/hour on the cheap end (US$0.75 - US$1.00) and 120 Baht/hour on the expensive side (US$3).
Similarly, in Ireland and Spain, I have seen prices of about 4 Euros/hour in easyInternet cafes.
So, I ask...how did you compile your data? How many cafes did you investigate in these locations? Given my own experiences, I would question your results. ==========
I realize that you were looking at a small sampling, but I have travelled extensively in Australia and New Zealand, and I can tell you that I almost never saw rates as high as you're describing. Most people there can visit a cheap internet cafe for US$2.50 an hour if they make even a slight effort.
Wife: [reading plaque] "Time to harvest the kumara" What's a kumara?
Husband: It's a sweet potato.
I imagine at this point the wife will sacrifice the husband on the pagan altar, or whatever they install at this thing.
No, no, she'll want to sacrifice him after he tries steaming the kumara in one of the muddy boiling steam vents at Rotorua..."What's that SMELL, dear?"
It's called the appearance of impropriety and a possible lack of objectivity. Or, in simpler English: Allowing unlimited donations from a corporation (or even an individual with lots of money) could give the appearance of a government run by bribery.
And therein lies the problem. See, everybody knows that saying to a politician "I'll give you $5,000,000 if you vote against law X" is illegal. But, somebody who wants to influence the law that way is probably smart enough to know that saying those exact words would land him in jail for bribery. So, they don't use those exact words and instead find one of countless ways to hint, suggest, and imply what they want in return WITHOUT ever directly saying "I'm giving money in return for your support." But, that's what they mean and everybody KNOWS that they mean it.
This doesn't mean that every politician is easily susceptible to bribery and it doesn't mean that a politician wouldn't have already voted for/against a particular issue -- after all, people tend to donate money to politicians whose causes they believe in.
However, allowing large amounts of money from an individual -- or from non-individuals like corporations who have no right to vote -- invites the APPEARANCE of bribery. And therein lies the rub.
Take a look at the current debate raging over increased fines and prison time for people who share files via P2P. Is there any doubt in your mind that the only reason this is an "important" issue before congress is because somebody (or thing) with lots of money is concerned about it? Ask a random sampling of your (non-tech and non-geek) neighbors how they feel about the issue. You'll probably find that most of them don't have strong feelings about the issue (I'm making the assumption that most people who share files probably don't know or care about how the law affects them). Which begs the question: Why are politicians so up-in-arms about this issue if most of the electorate really doesn't care?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious. Because somebody with power and money DOES care. And donates. And convinces others to donate.
There's nothing wrong with that in my mind -- as long as the entity donating has the right to vote and the sum of money doesn't overwhelm the system to the extent that bribery can be suspected.
Thus, it's OK for all the actors, producers, directors, technicians, writers, etc. in Hollywood to each donate $3000 to a politician and include a note asking for better piracy laws. It's *NOT* OK when MGM, Universal, Disney, etc. each send checks for $5,000,000 and a note asking for the same thing.
I'm sure that the poster of that comment intended it to be funny. I just did not find it humorous in the least.
It *is* possible to be funny about serious subjects. It's just a bit harder to do so. And while the guy may get a star for effort, I thought he fell flat in the implementation.
On the bright side, at least he was familiar with the poem. Most people probably won't get the reference.
You said: Palestine may not have been an independent nation state, but the Palestinian people had existed as a distinct race since biblical times when the Semitic tribes split along religious grounds.
Care to provide some proof for this? Linguistically, the Palestinians speak almost the same dialect of Arabic which Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians do. See http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/profl02.htm for more information.
Until the late 1980s, Jordan still claimed ownership of the West Bank. It was only in 1989 that Jordan finally relinquished all claims to the land and its people. See http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods9.html for more information.
You said: Israel was created following the even bigger influx of Jewsih refugees after the Second World War. Many of these refugees brought bitter memories of the concenration camps with them, and a willingness to use force to gain a nation state. The British were unable to control the situation, having been effectively bankrupted by the war, and eventually pulled out after increased bombings of their official buildings, etc. The result was bloodshed, as the Jewish militias ehnically cleansed large parts of Palestine. Pretty ironic considering the background to the Jewish desire for a nation state.
I'm not even going to bother refuting your comments about "ethnic cleansing" since they're so ridiculous.
What I will do is try to put a nail in the coffin of the completely erroneous belief that Israel exists only due to European imperialism, and that its population is a reflection of that "fact."
The reality is that Israeli Jews are incredibly multi-ethnic, and a very large percentage of the society has no roots in Europe! For some reason, in this whole discussion of refugees, nobody ever mentions how the high number of Jewish citizens from Arab countries who were forced to flee to Israel as refugees:
From http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-litt man120302.asp:
In 1945 there were about 140,000 Jews in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 60,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; and 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangiers. That comes to a total of about 960,000 -- and more than 200,000 in Iran and Turkey.
The vast majority of these people were forced to flee their own lands into Israel. And, more recently, almost 15,000 Jews from Ethiopia -- yes, there are actually black Jews in the world! -- fled their own country and arrived in Israel.
Pretty ironic that none of these groups have any desire to go back to the "homes" they lived in for hundreds or even thousands of years. And, unlike Palestinians who have relocated to Jordan, most of these people's children no longer consider themselves "refugees."
Slashdot Mirror
So, let's say that your patent troll is a single corporation with no resources other than a single patent.
Said corporation then hires a lawyer who agrees to take the case on contingency and files suit against Deep Pockets Company. Two years later, Deep Pockets Company wins the case and has the patent declared invalid, after having paid out a cool $2 million in legal fees.
Deep Pockets Company now demands its legal fees from the patent troll.
There's only one problem. The patent troll's only resource was a patent that is now worthless. It has no money. What benefit does your "loser pays" law get you in this case?
You can refuse to accept it all you want. But the fact is that somebody with training and experience in ANY area will always know more than somebody without the same training and experience.
... can only be interpreted by some wizard class.")
(Caveat: I disagree with your suggestion that a lawyer is a "wizard" and also disagree with your attempt to equate the reasonable suggestion that somebody hire a lawyer to do complex legal work with the idea that "the legal system
If you wanted to design a new jet airplane, would you refuse to hire a trained expert engineer because the laws of physics are (theoretically) observable by anybody? How about police work -- do you think that any guy with a concealed weapon permit will have better instincts than a trained police officer with years on the force?
The "legal system we are all obligated to conform to" includes many disparate parts. No individual -- and certainly no lawyer -- is an expert in all of them. You describe the system's complexity and its centuries of growth and specialization as "convoluted." I would describe it as a feature of our democratic system -- as the world around us changes and modernizes, the law must grow and adapt as well.
You're more than welcome to suggest that the system's complexity makes us "subjugated by the legal system." Then again, somebody who grew up with MS-DOS and SunOS 4 is also more than welcome to make the ridiculous suggestion that modern day users are "subjugated" by Windows Vista and/or Linux because of the complexity of those systems.
The power to create law DOES derive from the people. You have the right to vote for your legislators. And to run for office. You also have the right to go to law school and learn about the basic mechanics of how the "system" works. The fact that you have made a personal choice not to do any of these things is not a fault of "the system."
And the fact is that a patent attorney with 20 years experience writing and/or litigating patents will know a thing or two about the system that you can't possibly know without his or her experience.
I see that there have already been some posts about going into law. I'll try not to repeat what's already been said. Here's my own advice, based on good experience:
(1) Work for a few years doing something CS-related. Whether coding, sysadmin work, user interfaces, or software design, pick something and stick with it for at least a few years. The benefit of doing this is that you'll get invaluable real-world experience and you'll learn what you like and what you don't like. If you're lucky and good at what you do, you might also get some exposure to the business side of CS.
(2) If you're happy with what you're doing and you believe that there's a high potential for growth, stay in your field and look no further; you've found your dream, why break it?
(3) Keep yourself informed about legal issues related to CS. These may be intellectual property, privacy, computer security, computer crime, or even HIPAA/FTC/FCC/securities regulation. Think about how the knowledge you've gained from work has help you understand the issues better.
(4) Take the LSAT. Apply to law schools. As much as it pains me to say so, you MUST be aware of how a law school's ranking affects your ability to get a good job out of school. If you go to Yale, then a good job is virtually guaranteed. It's certainly possible to get a good job out of St. John's and Brooklyn, but the risk is also higher. For some schools, you must be at the top of your class. (FYI, the more technical your skillset, the more likely that a patent prosecution firm will overlook your grades in favor of your experience -- one of the few exceptions to the general rule that LSAT/undergraduate grades/law school grades define your future.)
(5) Again, think LONG and HARD about the financial risk you'll be taking by returning to school. You may not have an income for 3 years.
With all that said, I personally find computer law to be an incredibly fascinating field. A CS background allows me to talk with computer professionals and ask the right questions. It's my job to translate computer knowledge into plain English for a judge and jury. I love the logical puzzles -- both technical and non-technical -- that I need to solve every day. I have the ability to see much more of the "big picture" that CS programmers rarely see, and I hope to eventually apply that knowledge to important policy questions.
Assuming copyright law granted 14-year exclusive rights:
The copyright on version 1 would expire 14 years afterwards.
Whether or not version 2 had a copyright would depend on whether it was a new work. For example, changing a single word in a 100,000 word novel wouldn't be copyrightable. But, making a larger change -- for example, the way that Stephen King released a new version of "The Stand" with 200 extra pages of material -- would be copyrightable, probably as a derivative work. The new version's copyright would have 14 years on its own.
But keep in mind that in the period of time where the copyright on version 1 had expired but the copyright on version 2 had not, somebody would be perfectly within their rights to publish version 1 without your permission.
Whenever the copyright expires on Disney's work, it would work the same way. For example, "Mickey Mouse" does not have a copyright. A *work* with Mickey Mouse does have a copyright. Therefore, when the copyright on a work published in 1940 with Mickey Mouse expires, you'll have the right to do whatever you want with that 1940 work, but you will *not* be able to do whatever you want with videos of "The Mickey Mouse Club" from decades later.
This is nothing new. William Landes and Richard Posner (two U Chicago Law Professors) made almost the exact same claim in 2002. See it for yourself here: Indefinitely Renewable Copyright
Well, there are a few issues:
(1) If you want to keep "cherished family poems" from entering the public domain, just don't put them in the public domain. I have no problem with making it illegal to invade somebody's privacy that way. Obviously, once the damage is done, it's done, but even basic copyright should allow a number of years to make it difficult to disseminate.
(2) You are absolutely right that international treaties (TRIPS, etc.) are a thorn in the side to legal experimentation that tries to make a useful balance between encouraging creativity of creators and limiting the amount of time that those rights can be held.
(3) Based on Landes & Posner's article, most copyrights lose value at 15 years. Why not set a guaranteed copyright period of 15 years, and then charge $2 for the 16th year. Each year (or some other period) afterwards, the amount of money required would double. This way, in the first few years (or decades), the formality of re-registration would just be the owner's way of confirming that they still cared about keeping the item out of the public domain. As the fee reached higher amounts, the owner would begin needing to make economic (or privacy) decisions. Even Disney won't pay $4,000,000 to extend a copyright that isn't pulling in cash. On the other hand, this lets big companies like Disney try to milk their product for a few more years, if they so chose.
Again -- if you want to keep cherished family poems out of the system, just don't publicize them and make the penalties for unauthorized publication sufficiently high.
Actually, a good economic argument does exist for perpetual copyright ... but that same argument would require copyright owners to perpetually pay fees to re-register their works so that the "deadwood" -- works with worthless copyrights -- would fall into the public domain within very short amounts of time, sometimes within 10 years of creation. Thus, the 0.01% of works that are actually worth money 100 years after their creation would continue to be subject to copyright laws, while the 99.99% that isn't making any amount of money would fall into the public domain.
For a full economic analysis see this article (for which I'm copying the abstract):
William Landes & Richard Posner, Indefinitely Renewable Copyright
"Abstract:
In this paper we raise questions concerning the widely accepted proposition that economic efficiency requires that copyright protection be limited in its duration (often shorter than the current term). We show that just as an absence of property rights in tangible property would lead to inefficiencies, so intangible works that fall into the public domain may be inefficiently used because of congestion externalities and impaired incentives to invest in maintaining and exploiting these works. Although a system of indefinite renewals could lead to perpetual copyrights or very long terms, this is unlikely. Our empirical analysis indicates that (1) fewer than 11 percent of the copyrights registered between 1883 and 1964 were renewed at the end of their 28-year term, even though the cost of renewal was small; (2) copyrights are subject to significant depreciation and have an expected or average life of only about 15 years; and (3) copyright registration and renewals are highly responsive to economic incentives for the shorter the expected life of a copyright and the higher the registration and renewal fees, the less likely are both registration and renewal. This in turn suggests that a system of modestly higher registration and renewal fees than at present, a relatively short initial term (20 years or so), and a right of indefinite renewal (possibly subject to an overall maximum term of protection of say 100 years) would cause a large number of copyrighted works to be returned to the public domain quite soon after they were created. A further benefit of indefinite renewal is that it would largely eliminate the rent-seeking problem that is created by the fact that owners (and users) of valuable copyrights that are soon to expire will expend real resources on trying to persuade (dissuade) Congress to extend the term."
You need much more information than you've given to go into this decision, but how about trying law?
As a computer professional, you already have an analytical mind, so you're a step ahead. Assuming that you have very good non-computer writing skills, it might be a good career move. You'll be working among smart people, and -- because the law changes every single day -- you need to constantly learn new things. And if you have worked as a technical kind of person, patent law might be a good choice because too many lawyers are afraid of it.
I will say that this is not the career move for everybody. If your reading and writing skills are not really good, you should look for a different field. You also need to do well on the LSAT and get into a good school. Be realistic -- if you don't go to a "top" school, then either you're at the top of your class or you're not getting one of those super-high-paying law jobs. Know the employment statistics *before* you accept a school's offer. Ask probing questions. Realize that once you get into law school that your life will revolve around schoolwork for the next three years; it is *much* harder than undergrad. (Don't even bother doing a 4-year part time or evening program.)
But if you think you're up for the challenge, go for it!
I'm saying that if somebody really wants my dirty underwear -- and a used pocket knife -- let them have it. The only stuff that goes under the plane are things that I'm not afraid to lose, such as clothing, spare reading material, etc. Anything valuable or personal is in my daypack which stays with me. For the sake of convenience for not having to buy a new knife and cookset, I'll stuff it under the plane. And my insurance (or the airline) will cover it if it's lost. (You do buy insurance, don't you?)
Strangely enough, the pocket knife I'm referring to was actually "lost" by an airline recently. I got a check in the mail for its value just a few weeks later.
While I think this advice is useful in a theoretical sense, it is practically impossible (or at the very least extremely difficult) not to check luggage these days.
One of the more important items you can have as a backpacker is a swiss army knife or a leatherman. These are virtually impossible to carry on board a plane these days. Additionally, because my mini-cookset includes a small knife, I need to check it.
I'm not sure where the above poster has traveled to, but I have never been asked for a bribe in order to get my luggage back, and I have been to every continent except for South America and Antarctica. Mind you, I have had something valuable stolen -- while in the hands of a tour operator in a 1st world country -- but never at the hands of the local baggage check or authorities.
Mind you, if you decide to buy drugs from a local in some middle-of-nowhere town, then you may deserve what's coming to you -- the seller will take your money, give you the drugs, and then helpfully inform the local police in return for some of the money you'll pay to get out of jail -- but that's quite a different thing.
I suspect that the payphone situation in Asia is probably even more dire than in Europe, and that getting a GSM SIM would be even easier and cheaper, so that's definitely the route I'd go.
3-4 years ago, many internet cafes -- including those in 3rd world countries in Asia -- doubled as phone centers where for US$0.25/minute you could talk over the internet to relatives in the US. I can't recall ever using a phone booth, except in airports.
I'm going to second the recommendation for traveling light.
Take as *little* as possible, including clothing. Do laundry three times a week if you need to. Any electronic goodies you take with you should be the kinds of things that are absolutely necessary and fit in your pocket and/or daypack that you have with you all the time.
I did something like this 3-4 years ago. The most expensive items I had with me were (1) Malaria medication, (2) digital camera and accessories, (3) mobile phone. Take the bare necessities only, and you'll have a better time.
For what it's worth, the one thing I wish I had taken was a small portable hard drive with plenty of disk space. Because I didn't have one, I was stuck transferring my photos onto CDs every few days, burning two copies, mailing one home, and keeping the other.
I can't imagine having a laptop computer with me. If you're planning on staying in hostels, there will be plenty of times when you need to leave all your belongings in a room with 10 strangers. People are generally trustworthy, but there's no need to tempt them. If you have expensive items that you can't afford to lose, you're going to want to have them on your person at all times -- and you will not want a laptop with you when you're climbing a mountain. Even if you don't stay in dorm rooms, your laptop may get ruined anyways, especially if the canoe you're in decides to flip (thankfully a mobile phone and camera each fit in little plastic baggies).
Outside the United States, internet cafes are everywhere. Use them. (Of course, be aware of security issues / keyloggers.) Travel as light as you possibly can and enjoy the world outside your computer.
The issue in this case is whether telecommuting is the same as working in an office. My point was that a state which you do not live in *does* have the right to tax your income under certain circumstances, when it believes that the income was earned/generated inside of that state
So, this isn't taxation without representation. If I didn't want to pay NJ taxes, my choice was
While I'm not voicing an opinion about the current tax system at issue, the reasoning seems pretty simple: The employee is "technically" working out of the NY office even as he sits at home. My guess is that if his company opened an office in his home state, then he could "work" from that office and pay his own home state taxes instead. The problem seems to be that courts are trying to figure out how to apply this newfangled idea of telecommuting while still preserving their ability to collect taxes for services provided to the companies and residents. There will probably be other court cases here. Many may conflict with these issues. And eventually, it may be decided by legislation. This certainly is not the last word on the subject.
My guess is that other states must give full faith and credit to NYS decisions. /ephraim
OK, just for sake of argument let's say that there are three frames of reference (perspectives) for reality:
/ephraim
1. The way that Orbitz would like to interpret US contract law for their Terms and Conditions.
2. The way that you would like to interpret US contract law for Orbitz's Terms and Conditions.
3. Your view of how Orbitz's Terms and conditions should be interpreted in a Perfect World (TM) regardless of US law or any other law.
It was quite clear from your posting that you were not looking at reality from perspective #1, and in fact your were trying to disagree with it. I read your comment about "I don't know how the law actually is, I just think that's how it should be" to mean that you didn't know much about the law on these issues, but thought it should turn out the way you described in perspective #2. So, I responded in kind, assuming that you were trying to described something with a basis in "our" reality.
Obviously, I misunderstood what you meant, and you were describing a "perfect world" scenario. Unfortunately, I can't agree with that either.
> First, Orbitz should be allowed to do whatever they want. This includes prohibiting deep linking.
Orbitz's right to do "whatever they want" stops at my right to do "whatever I want." In the real world, *nobody* can do "whatever they want." because something -- law, morality, religion -- needs to define that boundary between me and you so that it's clear for all of us who want to play on fair ground.
You might respond that Orbitz can do whatever it wants as long it doesn't affect me directly, but that's almost impossible unless Orbitz lives in a world by itself. Another counter-example: Let's say Orbitz has an online contract which is in English except that the last line saying "you hereby agree to give Orbitz your first born child" is written in Arabic. Since I can't read Arabic, I click (or sign) my agreement, thinking that the Arabic words were just a pretty squiggly line. Should this be enforceable? You *did* sign the agreement and nobody forced you to. If you agree that the contract is unenforceable, then Orbitz *cannot* do whatever it wants.
On to your next claim:
> Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
I will assume that your proposition is that contracts may never be enforceable unless in writing and signed. Again, I disagree. This would make commerce impossibly difficult. Imagine: Some kid comes to your front door and offers to shovel your driveway. After 5 minutes of bargaining, you verbally agree on paying him $50 for his work. He performs the work, and asks you for your money. Do you now have the right to tell him to get lost because he didn't ask for it in writing? Should the law be able to back him up, or should you be able to legally refuse payment?
Wrong. You can't put "whatever you want" into a contract. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors. (The summary in that link is not so great, but it should give you the basic idea.) Many issues come into play here: notice, unconscionability, duress, etc.
> Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it. Wrong again. The general rule is that contracts do *not* need to be signed. For that matter, most contracts need not even be in writing. While I think the clause is ridiculous and possibly unenforceable, you're not going to get anywhere by making bogus legal arguments. /ephraim
This is speaking as a Unix SA only, so I don't know how well it will apply to pure programmers or other professions.
... some law firms will reject resumes outright if the person didn't graduate from a top 10 school.)
/ephraim
There are two main benefits to having a college degree on your resume: getting your foot in the door and getting a good salary.
Having a well-known college/university on your resume will open many more doors than if you don't have the degree, or if you have it from a lesser college/university. Simply put: You are more likely to get interviews if you have a top university on your resume than if you don't. That being said, the value of a name decreases over your lifetime with experience. Once you're known in the field (and believe me, the world of SAs is smaller than it appears to be; corollary: never, ever burn your bridges), your (people) networking skills will get you farther than the degree. However, the degree and name in your pocket will help for those first few years when you're a nobody, and make your resume sail a little closer to the top of the huge pile on somebody's desk.
(Note that the name of the university you went to affects much more than just CS type jobs
In terms of market worth, having a degree will get you a better salary. My impression has been that the name of your school will not necessarily affect your market worth, but having a degree -- any degree -- will affect your salary big time.
Example: I used to work with a guy who had dropped out of college and started work as a night operator for a major finance firm. Over 3 years, he worked his way up to senior SA. Out of all the guys I worked with, he was the smartest and hardest working of the bunch, but because he didn't have a piece of paper from any university, his salary was about 60% of the market rate for those with a college degree.
Just my $0.02.
IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power.
The election of judges is one of the worst possible ways to "make things better" in this country.
Our government has a system of "checks and balances" between the executive (The President), legislative (Congress), and judiciary (Supreme Court) branches. The best way is for "The People" to elect the the executive and legislative branches of government, and have judges appointed as some type of compromise between those branches. This is what currently happens with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, many states have been moving towards a system that makes judges an elected office, just like governors and state representatives. This is a horrible, horrible idea.
For our system of checks and balances to work, judges must be impartial regarding issues that come before them. Sure, judges are human beings too, with political beliefs, preferences, and different methods for interpreting the law. Obviously, these preferences will affect the way judges look at cases. However, by nature of an appointment, a judge is not required to pander to rule of the mob and can work independently without fear of losing their jobs because of an unpopular decision. This is the purpose of having them as a check to unbridled power in the executive and legislative branches.
Unfortunately, if you make judges elected, then you throw away the whole purpose of having them as checks and balances to mob rule by the legislative and executive branches. Rulings become less based on law (which, btw, is frequently written by those other branches) and more based on what it takes to get re-elected.
Having judges pander to the mob that will re-elect them is an incredibly dumb idea simply because they no longer have the freedom they need to operate as a check and balance. Also, how can you work as an impartial arbitrator, as a judge, you take campaign contributions and know that a "wrong" vote might bury your career, even if that vote is just following the law as written by the legislature or enshrined in the Constitution? If a judge accepts $100,000 from Microsoft for his campaign, do you want that judge deciding a case where you sue Microsoft over breach of warranty?
Other politicians besides judges accept campaign contributions. But those other politicians have no obligation to be fair and impartial to all who come before them. Judges, however, must frequently decide questions of law in ways that might not be popular, but are "right" because of the way that the law has been written. If this happens, blame your legislator or the framers of the Constitution. Or, better yet, blame the voters who put those people in power. Don't blame the judges for simply doing their job and following the law.
Travis,
i d=2594
You don't appear to have an e-mail address on the article's web site, so I sent this to the general address at the magazine.
In any case, I am reposting my comments here:
========
Hi! I am writing in response to Travis Daub's "Cost of Cyberliving" on your website at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_
One year ago, I visited New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Japan. I have also been to various parts of Europe in the past 3 years.
Unfortunately, for those countries with which I am familiar, your numbers do not appear to accurately reflect the prices that I have paid for internet access.
In the case of New Zealand, I paid NZ$2 (US$1.10) in city-center cafes in Auckland, while the most I ever paid was NZ$8 (US$4.40) at remote Fox Glacier Village. The average price was probably NZ$3.50/hour (US$2).
In Australia, prices were similar, with most cafes charging AU$3-AU$4/hour (US$2 - US$2.65).
In Thailand, prices in major tourist areas were about 30-40 Baht/hour on the cheap end (US$0.75 - US$1.00) and 120 Baht/hour on the expensive side (US$3).
Similarly, in Ireland and Spain, I have seen prices of about 4 Euros/hour in easyInternet cafes.
So, I ask...how did you compile your data? How many cafes did you investigate in these locations? Given my own experiences, I would question your results.
==========
I realize that you were looking at a small sampling, but I have travelled extensively in Australia and New Zealand, and I can tell you that I almost never saw rates as high as you're describing. Most people there can visit a cheap internet cafe for US$2.50 an hour if they make even a slight effort.
Just FYI.
No, no, she'll want to sacrifice him after he tries steaming the kumara in one of the muddy boiling steam vents at Rotorua..."What's that SMELL, dear?"
Yes, there is something wrong with this.
It's called the appearance of impropriety and a possible lack of objectivity. Or, in simpler English: Allowing unlimited donations from a corporation (or even an individual with lots of money) could give the appearance of a government run by bribery.
And therein lies the problem. See, everybody knows that saying to a politician "I'll give you $5,000,000 if you vote against law X" is illegal. But, somebody who wants to influence the law that way is probably smart enough to know that saying those exact words would land him in jail for bribery. So, they don't use those exact words and instead find one of countless ways to hint, suggest, and imply what they want in return WITHOUT ever directly saying "I'm giving money in return for your support." But, that's what they mean and everybody KNOWS that they mean it.
This doesn't mean that every politician is easily susceptible to bribery and it doesn't mean that a politician wouldn't have already voted for/against a particular issue -- after all, people tend to donate money to politicians whose causes they believe in.
However, allowing large amounts of money from an individual -- or from non-individuals like corporations who have no right to vote -- invites the APPEARANCE of bribery. And therein lies the rub.
Take a look at the current debate raging over increased fines and prison time for people who share files via P2P. Is there any doubt in your mind that the only reason this is an "important" issue before congress is because somebody (or thing) with lots of money is concerned about it? Ask a random sampling of your (non-tech and non-geek) neighbors how they feel about the issue. You'll probably find that most of them don't have strong feelings about the issue (I'm making the assumption that most people who share files probably don't know or care about how the law affects them). Which begs the question: Why are politicians so up-in-arms about this issue if most of the electorate really doesn't care?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious. Because somebody with power and money DOES care. And donates. And convinces others to donate.
There's nothing wrong with that in my mind -- as long as the entity donating has the right to vote and the sum of money doesn't overwhelm the system to the extent that bribery can be suspected.
Thus, it's OK for all the actors, producers, directors, technicians, writers, etc. in Hollywood to each donate $3000 to a politician and include a note asking for better piracy laws. It's *NOT* OK when MGM, Universal, Disney, etc. each send checks for $5,000,000 and a note asking for the same thing.
Make sense?
It *is* possible to be funny about serious subjects. It's just a bit harder to do so. And while the guy may get a star for effort, I thought he fell flat in the implementation.
On the bright side, at least he was familiar with the poem. Most people probably won't get the reference.
No offense to the author of the post above, but you've really mangled the meaning and intent of his poem.
You can find the original poem(s) at http://scott.hayes.org/thoughts/niemoller.html.
You said:
t man120302.asp :
Palestine may not have been an independent nation state, but the Palestinian people had existed as a distinct race since biblical times when the Semitic tribes split along religious grounds.
Care to provide some proof for this? Linguistically, the Palestinians speak almost the same dialect of Arabic which Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians do. See http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/profl02.htm for more information.
Until the late 1980s, Jordan still claimed ownership of the West Bank. It was only in 1989 that Jordan finally relinquished all claims to the land and its people. See http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods9.html for more information.
You said:
Israel was created following the even bigger influx of Jewsih refugees after the Second World War. Many of these refugees brought bitter memories of the concenration camps with them, and a willingness to use force to gain a nation state. The British were unable to control the situation, having been effectively bankrupted by the war, and eventually pulled out after increased bombings of their official buildings, etc. The result was bloodshed, as the Jewish militias ehnically cleansed large parts of Palestine. Pretty ironic considering the background to the Jewish desire for a nation state.
I'm not even going to bother refuting your comments about "ethnic cleansing" since they're so ridiculous.
What I will do is try to put a nail in the coffin of the completely erroneous belief that Israel exists only due to European imperialism, and that its population is a reflection of that "fact."
The reality is that Israeli Jews are incredibly multi-ethnic, and a very large percentage of the society has no roots in Europe! For some reason, in this whole discussion of refugees, nobody ever mentions how the high number of Jewish citizens from Arab countries who were forced to flee to Israel as refugees:
From http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lit
In 1945 there were about 140,000 Jews in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 60,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; and 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangiers. That comes to a total of about 960,000 -- and more than 200,000 in Iran and Turkey.
The vast majority of these people were forced to flee their own lands into Israel. And, more recently, almost 15,000 Jews from Ethiopia -- yes, there are actually black Jews in the world! -- fled their own country and arrived in Israel.
Pretty ironic that none of these groups have any desire to go back to the "homes" they lived in for hundreds or even thousands of years. And, unlike Palestinians who have relocated to Jordan, most of these people's children no longer consider themselves "refugees."
Just some food for thought.