What good does it do to have physicists observe a test where they aren't given any theory and aren't allowed to take the device apart? You might as well have a class of second-graders witness it.
Suckering professionals into "witnessing" the tests is just part of the scam.
Does Rossi not realize that no so-called 'security device' can not withstand expert examination? Once his 'secret' is out, he has zero protection. He must know this, so the security device is just a layer of sticky bullshit to trap suckers.
You'll know he's for real when he puts one in someone else's hands.
Until then, the hypothesis that best fits the evidence is that he's a con artist.
... what is right is to think about how technology has given people NEW rights that could be considered inalienable under many definitions, and that existing methods of revenue generation for media companies might have to change to accommodate these new paradigms.
Bah. Your right to ride one of those newfangled automobillies shouldn't be allowed to undercut *my* right to get rich selling buggie whips.
Abolish copyright. We gave it a 200 year trial, and it has not served its purpose of making artists self-sufficient. Instead, it has only further entrenched the patron model by giving the patrons legal teeth, handing our culture over to corporations and the insanely rich. Further, we're seeing more and more that free speech and copyright are completely incompatible. It's time we decide which we care more about: a fictitious emotion-backed economic system, or basic human rights.
I'd like to see copyright (and patents) made non-transferable, and the licensing of exclusive rights limited to (say) five years. Then Big Entertainment can market a tune for all it's worth for a short time, but after that the creator can switch to a higher bidder if the product has legs.
Also, studios couldn't buy movie rights and then sit on it for decades. If they don't get busy and make the movie, someone else can.
The problem with this scheme is that it would probably result in artists being assassinated to free up high-value IP assets. I don't know if there's a solution to IP that Big Money won't twist around for unintended consequences.
If it weren't for pirating children in poor families would never be able to be even one-tenth of cultured as some bratty rich kid who might buy all of his media.
Or *more* cultured, if they turn their attention to the local music scene, local poets and storytellers, etc., like people did before Big Entertainment became the Kraken With A Million Tentacles.
"Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders."
So, if we were to collectively respond, what would we suggest instead? Since the message here indicates that opposing the idea completely won't work, what can we suggest that they might actually agree with?
Start by identifying what the might actually agree with.
I'm guessing, "Whatever gives the best odds of getting re-elected", which to a first approximation means "Whatever the richest lobbyists want".
Now... What can we identify that might coincide with what the richest lobbyists want?
I see in our future, another war... the war on piracy. This war will be very similar to the war on drugs... and will be just as much a failure. The companies that benefit the most from the "war on drugs" are the pharmaceutical companies and private corporations that support law enforcement tools and methods (including privatized jails).
The companies that will benefit from the "war on piracy" will be the big content companies and private corporations that support law enforcement tools and methods (including privatized jails).
Hmm...
Mod up.
I suspect well over half the US population has tried pot, but somehow it remains illegal. If well over half the US population downloads illegal MP3s, that won't stop the War On Downloads either.
I really don't understand why further regulation is needed here to protect the rights of the content owners. Are there not copyright laws in effect? Don't they already have the ability to take down sites (with a certain amount of due process), sue for damages, etc?
The problem for the *AA is that it's a game of whack-a-mole against distributors, and too much trouble to sue every downloader for petty theft. Especially if the penalty is limited to reasonable damages.
So, like DRM, they're hoping for a technological solution. Which anyone with a clue will realize isn't going to work any better than DRM does.
A part of the solution is to be less draconian in punishment and more successful at catching people. Violating copyright is something that should basically be a traffic offense, and instead the law literally makes every American a felon.
The *AA has adopted a strategy of making an example of a few petty offenders, presumably in order to scare everyone else. They can't possibly prosecute everyone who is stealing $1 MP3s.
The idea that windows 7 is the best thing since xp is silly because it fails to take in account all the exact same issues you have had since XP and windows NT.
Back in c.o.l.a. days (is that still around?), the Windows fans went through endless rounds of "Yeah, the last version of Windows was crap, but *this* one is the best OS money can buy!" New release, same old song.
Life is defined as something that feeds and reproduces. The requirement for water or carbon is not part of the definition, it's simply properties we thought all life forms had.
Mod up. Biologists have indeed told me that life is defined by a collection of properties such as metabolism and reproduction. Maybe NASA needs to change its definition, but not "Science".
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday's frauds... sometimes end up being tomorrow's innovations and discoveries.
20 years ago... "We" are the only system of planets in the universe
Last week... The number of planets in the universe outnumbers the number of stars
20 years ago... Einstein thinks black holes should exist but most think he's nuts
Last few years... A black hole exists in every known galaxy
Fortunately there weren't any scams 20 years ago.
There may be plenty of lolz when all the naysayers are warming their snarky asses
by electricity generated from a Rossi invention.
-AI
Is he peddling snarky ass warmers too?
so he is either scamming someone for money, or he believes it is working.
That's the fine line between 'crook' and 'crank'.
What good does it do to have physicists observe a test where they aren't given any theory and aren't allowed to take the device apart? You might as well have a class of second-graders witness it.
Suckering professionals into "witnessing" the tests is just part of the scam.
Does Rossi not realize that no so-called 'security device' can not withstand expert examination? Once his 'secret' is out, he has zero protection. He must know this, so the security device is just a layer of sticky bullshit to trap suckers.
You'll know he's for real when he puts one in someone else's hands.
Until then, the hypothesis that best fits the evidence is that he's a con artist.
A way to scam more people out of their cash.
Maybe he's using an analogous method to cheat God out of free energy.
I for one am really interested how Mr.Rossi plans to escape once the jig is up
Maybe he also invented a spaceship.
I know your post was probably made in jest, but that's a poor example to follow "flying cars". There are actual videophones on market.
Uh, yeah. This is your whoosh moment.
A flying car passing overhead?
Here's a question for you: Which is the worse failure? The D student getting an F or the A student getting a D?
Not sure why you ask... it's been a while since we had a prez that I would call an A student.
There has to be a balance between one's teamwork and individual creativity.
But the optimal balance point differs between different personality types.
ask yourself, what's right.
...
what is right is to think about how technology has given people NEW rights that could be considered inalienable under many definitions, and that existing methods of revenue generation for media companies might have to change to accommodate these new paradigms.
Bah. Your right to ride one of those newfangled automobillies shouldn't be allowed to undercut *my* right to get rich selling buggie whips.
Abolish copyright. We gave it a 200 year trial, and it has not served its purpose of making artists self-sufficient. Instead, it has only further entrenched the patron model by giving the patrons legal teeth, handing our culture over to corporations and the insanely rich. Further, we're seeing more and more that free speech and copyright are completely incompatible. It's time we decide which we care more about: a fictitious emotion-backed economic system, or basic human rights.
I'd like to see copyright (and patents) made non-transferable, and the licensing of exclusive rights limited to (say) five years. Then Big Entertainment can market a tune for all it's worth for a short time, but after that the creator can switch to a higher bidder if the product has legs.
Also, studios couldn't buy movie rights and then sit on it for decades. If they don't get busy and make the movie, someone else can.
The problem with this scheme is that it would probably result in artists being assassinated to free up high-value IP assets. I don't know if there's a solution to IP that Big Money won't twist around for unintended consequences.
If it weren't for pirating children in poor families would never be able to be even one-tenth of cultured as some bratty rich kid who might buy all of his media.
Or *more* cultured, if they turn their attention to the local music scene, local poets and storytellers, etc., like people did before Big Entertainment became the Kraken With A Million Tentacles.
"Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders."
So, if we were to collectively respond, what would we suggest instead? Since the message here indicates that opposing the idea completely won't work, what can we suggest that they might actually agree with?
Start by identifying what the might actually agree with.
I'm guessing, "Whatever gives the best odds of getting re-elected", which to a first approximation means "Whatever the richest lobbyists want".
Now... What can we identify that might coincide with what the richest lobbyists want?
I see in our future, another war... the war on piracy. This war will be very similar to the war on drugs... and will be just as much a failure. The companies that benefit the most from the "war on drugs" are the pharmaceutical companies and private corporations that support law enforcement tools and methods (including privatized jails).
The companies that will benefit from the "war on piracy" will be the big content companies and private corporations that support law enforcement tools and methods (including privatized jails).
Hmm...
Mod up.
I suspect well over half the US population has tried pot, but somehow it remains illegal. If well over half the US population downloads illegal MP3s, that won't stop the War On Downloads either.
I really don't understand why further regulation is needed here to protect the rights of the content owners. Are there not copyright laws in effect? Don't they already have the ability to take down sites (with a certain amount of due process), sue for damages, etc?
The problem for the *AA is that it's a game of whack-a-mole against distributors, and too much trouble to sue every downloader for petty theft. Especially if the penalty is limited to reasonable damages.
So, like DRM, they're hoping for a technological solution. Which anyone with a clue will realize isn't going to work any better than DRM does.
They can see, very clearly, that the man is the worst failure as a president we've had in modern times.
Iff "modern times" started in January 2009.
I despise the man, but let's maintain a bit of objectivity.
A part of the solution is to be less draconian in punishment and more successful at catching people. Violating copyright is something that should basically be a traffic offense, and instead the law literally makes every American a felon.
The *AA has adopted a strategy of making an example of a few petty offenders, presumably in order to scare everyone else. They can't possibly prosecute everyone who is stealing $1 MP3s.
First, do no harm.
Since this is Slashdot, I expect the above well-written post to be marked flamebait within 10 minutes, because it dared to speak well of Microsoft.
Yet oddly enough, as I write it's modded "4, Interesting".
Slashdot doesn't suffer from groupthink nearly so bad as a lot of people like to (group?)think it does
.
The idea that windows 7 is the best thing since xp is silly because it fails to take in account all the exact same issues you have had since XP and windows NT.
Back in c.o.l.a. days (is that still around?), the Windows fans went through endless rounds of "Yeah, the last version of Windows was crap, but *this* one is the best OS money can buy!" New release, same old song.
The only surprise about this is that a public official is admitting it.
aren't all worlds, not our own, alien?
Yea, so 100,000,000,001 is total.
Life is defined as something that feeds and reproduces.
The requirement for water or carbon is not part of the definition, it's simply properties we thought all life forms had.
Mod up. Biologists have indeed told me that life is defined by a collection of properties such as metabolism and reproduction. Maybe NASA needs to change its definition, but not "Science".
You forgot about that other class of people: "I voted and the retarded majority won again."
Representative government doesn't mean that you're entitled to have your candidate win.
The only source of campaign contributions should be registered voters, and capped.
I agree, except that I would let parents contribute on behalf of their children.