I was looking to find a family doctor who was pro cannabis [...] Another thing I don't understand is how anyone could take a pill that spends more then half of the tv commercial talking about how many side effects there are and that rare occasional deaths can occur.
What makes you think, an honest cannabis commercial would dwell on the side effects any less? That crap is bad for you (worse for some than for others, like most things) — just because the government tells you that, does not mean, it is not so...
It is incredibly difficult to find an area where this is possible. For most of us, it's "move and switch" or "stay and deal".
And this situation is due to the government-enforced lack of competition. Running competing pipes, wires, and cables to each house was deemed unproductive, so "utilities" were given a monopoly. For whatever reason, you want the Internet to be the same.
The question was whether this is something people have complaints about it. I think you've answered that.
Absence of complaints is not the same as absence of problems — contrary to the implication of your question. I explained in vivid detail, examples of the problems with most utilities. You do see problems with your current monopolistic Internet provider. But the next generation — having never experienced unfettered Internet access and the freedom to chose providers with one phone call — will not know any better, and accept it just as readily, as you already accept dirty water in your faucets.
Do you honestly think the private sector would get rid of either of these?
If I'm unhappy about something provided by competitive private sector, I can always switch. I have, for example, canceled credit-cards over fees, that I deemed to high ($29 for not paying $20 bill on time? good bye). And on a few occasions, the bank had the brains to wave the fee so as not to lose the customer. If there is only one credit card, the fees will only be higher — EZ-Pass is the perfect example.
The answer is, it is not black and white. There are just as many corrupt, creaky, broken corporate bureaucracies as government bureaucracies. And while it's rare, you do occasionally see a lean, mean, governmental machine.
It is black and white. All organizations — private and public — get corrupted and inefficient sometimes. But private ones don't survive very long in that stage — unless they get government money, of course.
No, that's not why. The First Amendment makes no distinctions. False advertising laws are unconstitutional, but so convenient and useful, that almost everybody thinks, they are a good idea anyway.
I think, USA should've passed an amendment to explicitly allow the government to regulate certain speech without breaking the Constitution, instead of letting the courts "find" their right to do so after the umpteenth re-reading of the Constitution.
Such judicial reinterpretation of the law for political convenience (or even practical expedience) is just too slippery a slope... The "right" to abortion (mentioned nowhere in the Constitution) is not entirely unlike — a 20 year old's right "to do what she wants with her body" does not, for some reason, include alcohol consumption, but she has a "Constitutional" right to abortion...
As far as I'm concerned, the right to free speech allows you to say what you want, but not where you want.
First Amendment makes no such distinction, actually. It prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech, period. Certainly, limiting free speech to only certain "free speech areas" would qualify as "abridging" and thus be unconstitutional. I've already acknowledged, in my GP-posting, that the First Amendment does not force you to listen to someone else's speech, but banning all unsolicited business e-mails still seems wrong.
That's if you manage to overcome the (largely bogus) distinction between private and business — what if your friend signed up for Amway and wants to sign you up too? Will they be breaking your hypothetical law by inviting you to do so by e-mail?
I don't know, how to do such legislation correctly. But I can easily spot problems in other people's proposals...
If someone stands in the street telling people the world is ending, fine, what-ever. Now if they walk into your living room and do the same thing
And what if they stand on the public sidewalk and shout loudly enough for you to hear inside?
Now if they walk into your living room and do the same thing, sighting free speech, I'm sure you will still call the cops!
I will call the cops, even if they were silent — over trespassing (physical presence uninvited on my property). Spammers don't do that. To call spam "trespassing in your mailbox" (which, admit it, you were about to do) is far less legitimate, than, for example, call unauthorized MP3-download theft.
By sending their speech directly into my private inbox, they are in a way forcing me to listen
That's not illegal for anyone to do. Indeed, everyone one speaking to you does just that: force you to listen. What's your justification for banning businesses from doing so — by e-mail?
I am not from the US and cannot see a connection between freedom of speech for people and businesses having the right to say or do anything at all.
The distinction between people and businesses is artificial and usually does not exist. Your correspondent owns his own Corporation — am I a business or a person? And, of course, the wisely-worded First Amendment of the US Constitution makes no distinction either: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Since then, the courts have "found" that the so called "commercial" speech can be severely regulated: you can't lie in advertising, for example, and you can't advertise certain things (such as alcohol or cigarettes) in many cases.
Freedom for business is a good thing to but as soon as they trample on freedoms of human beings, that should be very closely examined!
Sure. Examined. But not banned altogether, as the GGP was proposing...
Why can an artist not make money without reverting to "IP laws"?
The answer was in my GP-post. Here it is repeated. If the IP is not tradeable, then the only way for artists to make money is by selling directly to end-user (consumer). Some artists can do this, and, indeed, some do — like, for example, Metallica and others, who have their own labels. But, as I already wrote, entrepreneurial acumen and artistic talent rarely overlap — a good artist is rarely a good businessmen. And even those, who could effectively sell their stuff, ought not to be forced to do so...
And even if all artists could market to consumers directly, who would pay them, other than the few true fans and a handful of charitable souls? Because, even if all "middlemen" disappeared tonight, you'd still be "sharing" MP3-files with the whole world and no one would pay the artists.
You have fallen for the broken-business-model trap.
If we must look at each other's motivations and flaws, then, I think, it is far more likely, that you are simply trying to justify your own thievery. Yes, yes, I know, it is not exactly the same as thievery of tangible goods, and you are doing it in protest. Sure... You are uncomfortable enjoying something, that you did not pay for, so you try to dress it up as "civil disobedience" pretending, it is only the "greedy" middleman you are ripping off, not the "noble" artist. Sorry to break this bubble, but you are ripping off both, and neither of them "deserve" it.
Civil disobedience is a signal of broken laws and traditions. "Digital Piracy" (sic) is simply a form of civil disobedience.
The exact same rationale can be applied to every other law or tradition:
"I killed her as form of civil disobedience."
"I stole this car to protest the laws, which forbade me from stealing this car."
For this reason alone, the rationale is wrong — please, don't repeat it.
but how long before a scared poorly trained sailor has emptied that clip?
Or a good-shooting sailor discharged it — with perfectly respectable kill-ratio — at innocent fishermen? A real Navy made that mistake last November, for example.
Why bother with all the new 'tech' that is probably expensive, etc. And just use something known to work....a simple fucking gun?!?!?
Many (most?) ports don't allow armed ships to enter. Having even a gun on-board will, likely, (dis)qualify. "Packing some serious heat" will definitely do...
I'm OK with outlawing any unsolicited email from a business, period.
First Amendment be damned...
Yes, yes, their right to speak does not obligate you to listen, but by outlawing all unsolicited emails from businesses you actually do violate the First Amendment. It is a tricky dilemma and has little to do with "businesses owning government" — if anything, their having the government's ear helps prevent the kind of over-reaction you are showing...
The problem is, of course, that you can't anticipate (with a grant like that) every single law you'd have to follow
Of course you can't anticipate it. Nor can you (the public/government) reasonably regulate every aspect of Internet service provision. Your only hope is competition — if a particular provider sucks, you can pick up a phone and switch to another. No campaigning, no petitioning, no marching or demonstrating — just call and switch... There are a few things in life, which can not be provided by anyone other than government (such as law enforcement or military). Everything else ought to be — exactly for this reason.
Let me ask you this: How are utilities handled? When was the last time anyone here bitched about their water bill? Literal hydraulic despotism doesn't happen, and it's precisely because of government interference.
Oh, boy... This is so wrong on so many levels... Let's see...
Slashdot is not the forum, where utilities are regularly discussed.
Public utilities are dreadfully outdated — for example, water quality varies widely and is regulated not by customer demand, but by bureaucracies at town, state, and federal level...
Right now, I'm looking to install water-conditioner in my house — ever seen the yellow mineral build-up in sinks and inside tea-kettles? If a competitor of American Water were to offer a filtered stream, I would've switched to them instead of replacing salt in the conditioner every four months for the rest of time.
Why do they still need to come to my house to read the meter?
Why do they need to come over to turn off non-payers (and charge the delinquents extra $15 or so for the pleasure)?
Why wouldn't the utilities offer hot water as extra service (doing so would allow heating centrally — and, possibly, for less), or really cold water to cool houses down in summer?
The answer is, government ownership kills innovation — and leads to inferior service. You just don't realize it, because a) unlike with the Internet service — you've never seen anything better; and b) evidently, you lack imagination to realize, what could've been...
No one else can really compete with their fiber network, partly because they have a government grant to do it.
Right there you hit the nail on the head, and did not notice it! I emphasized it for in the quote above — the government distorts the market with its grants and subsidies, which ought to stop — providing telecommunication services has long ago stopped being about good service, and became about winning government grants.
This needs to change, but you, instead, want more government meddling... Yes, you want small town government to take over, what federal government is doing, but there is no difference in principle. Business ought to compete for the customers, not for government subsidies. That's the point.
Why not simply PayPal the artist HALF of that money and download their music from TPB (or wherever) for free? That approach rewards the artist MANY TIMES MORE than the brain-dead system you are supporting.
The artist has voluntarily signed off rights to their music to the label — and was paid for it the amount, that both they and the label agreed on.
The label owns the music, that you like, and you owe them money, if you listen to it. Not to the artist, to the label. Get this into your head: intellectual property is tradeable, and ought to remain so for otherwise artists, designers, and scientists would not be able to sell the results of their (very much appreciated) labors to anyone, but the end-users.
Some of them might do well selling to end-users directly, but most would not. Entrepreneurial acumen and artistic (or scientific) gift do overlap, but infrequently so. By rejecting the rights of "middlemen" — be they music labels or patent-holders — to own intellectual property (a ripped-off artist gets your sympathy, but the label or "patent troll" gets nothing but scorn), you prevent the original creators from staying independent, forcing them to become employees of conglomerates, that not only creates, but also sells the intellectual property to end-users.
Turns out that most of the blocked ones are already posted on youtube via official channels with very poor video quality (letterboxed and pillarboxed for example).
So, the copyright belongs to someone else, and they chose to use a lower-quality version. I don't see, how this gives your niece — although she appears in the video, she is not the owner of it — the right to post her own version...
Back to the point about advancing human progress, I don't think, a particular fashion model's success or failure have any effect on it...
Why exactly does it merit any research? This is not riddle posed by Nature — people devised this device (ha-ha), and know all the answers perfectly already, they just don't want to tell you. You are not advancing scientific progress by figuring out somebody's scheme.
You may be advancing your own knowledge and skills, but calling it "research" has no more merit, than paparazzis' "research" into celebrities' lives...
I believe that if you aren't using the item that's patented, you shouldn't be able to sue over it.
How long are you willing to wait, before confiscating someone's patent? It may take a while after getting a patent to "get going", for example.
Also, your approach completely destroys the concept of a purely research organization — one, that would concentrate on scientific discoveries, while leaving actual practical use of them to the highest bidder. Because if your logic is implemented, no one will bid for the patents, because everyone will know, that if the patent-holder does not sell to any one, you will place the discovery into public domain.
Which means, your system will favor giant corporations, able to combine research and manufacturing...
despises Bush... Infantry and medical in my case, including Desert Storm.
You are a tiny minority, and you know it... Bush may have lost some military support since the linked article, but most in the military supported him — unlike the new President.
Try wrapping your right-wing-chickenhawk
Now, now... Do we really need these slurs? Not sure, why chicken hawk has become such a derogatory term among Bush-hating leftists, but for a mature (Desert Storm was 18 years ago!) person to use it seems quite wrong. I suspect, you weren't anything more than an enlisted man, got out as soon as you could, and have been nourishing your Leftist Illiberalism in academia ever since...
Thank you for your service nonetheless, of course.
You don't want a piece of military hardware able to run any old dodgy thing sold through the app store, and you equally don't want the machine unlocked and potentially vulnerable when the soldiers install the latest piece of [...]
I suspect, you also don't want your source of military software to be equally available on all iPhones out there — such as Iranian and Russian ones in particular...
China is building up powerful clean power-stations, while the US is wasting billions on bullshit projects intended to keep people working, rather than doing something useful.
Why aren't we building these stations so as to be able to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal and whatever else gets burned to produce electricity here? The Chinese bloggers suspect, we aren't sure of the technology and want to test it in China first, but the truth is much less sinister — and much more worrying...
We have simply lost the drive and our ability to take bold steps and initiatives. Would I like a nuclear plant in my backyard? Yes, as a matter of fact, I would certainly prefer it to a coal-burning one (with its radioactive smoke) or to a wind-turbine, which would take up the entire plot to produce enough electricity for a single light-bulb.
However, there are very powerful business (and political) forces that essentially get squeezed out of the scene once the artist is directly doing business with fans.
the code for the automobile isn't usually responsible for the deaths, whereas without the code running a UAV is essential to the ability to kill.
You are cherry-picking one aspect of car-making, that seems less lethal to you. Most of the code-writing for car-industry is not about car's electronics, but has to do with the car's manufacture — the awesome CAD packages (such as PRO/ENGINEER) are the "death-enablers".
Now, before you go back to the perceived differences in the intentions of code-writers working for auto- and military industries, let me remind you, that no one in the military intentionally targets the innocent. And that deaths of the innocents are the only lamentable (and, perhaps, reprehensible) part of using weapons.
Just as nobody in the car industry wants any deaths and crashes, nobody in the military wants "collateral damage". The GP's point was, such damage occurs in both fields anyway — and the car industry has a far worse record...
There is a fine line between merely caring for your customers and helping them get away with wrongs (be that wrong a crime or just a civil offense).
It is surprising, that it is legal, and they may be mistaken too — The Pirate Bay crew was just sentenced to a year in jail, however long them claimed, they did "nothing wrong".
I'm renovating a newly-bought house and wanted the excess heat from the server-room to be used to assist heating of the nearby office (and/or living room). The HVAC contractor said, he's never heard of anybody doing it, and that no equipment currently exists to do the job. He said, he's done a number of projects for data-centers (including a police department a few towns away), and the heat from them was always thrown into the atmosphere year-round, even if the same organization had a human-populated office in a building nearby or even on another floor of the same building...
If he was wrong, and intelligent equipment exists (or can be assembled from easy to acquire components), that can push the heat into another room, when that room needs heating (as per its thermostat), but vent outside, when it does not, please, tell me! Thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
How long, do you suppose, they'll continue to exist, if the efforts to get rid of the commercials described elsewhere on this page make progress?
What makes you think, an honest cannabis commercial would dwell on the side effects any less? That crap is bad for you (worse for some than for others, like most things) — just because the government tells you that, does not mean, it is not so...
And this situation is due to the government-enforced lack of competition. Running competing pipes, wires, and cables to each house was deemed unproductive, so "utilities" were given a monopoly. For whatever reason, you want the Internet to be the same.
Absence of complaints is not the same as absence of problems — contrary to the implication of your question. I explained in vivid detail, examples of the problems with most utilities. You do see problems with your current monopolistic Internet provider. But the next generation — having never experienced unfettered Internet access and the freedom to chose providers with one phone call — will not know any better, and accept it just as readily, as you already accept dirty water in your faucets.
If I'm unhappy about something provided by competitive private sector, I can always switch. I have, for example, canceled credit-cards over fees, that I deemed to high ($29 for not paying $20 bill on time? good bye). And on a few occasions, the bank had the brains to wave the fee so as not to lose the customer. If there is only one credit card, the fees will only be higher — EZ-Pass is the perfect example.
It is black and white. All organizations — private and public — get corrupted and inefficient sometimes. But private ones don't survive very long in that stage — unless they get government money, of course.
No, that's not why. The First Amendment makes no distinctions. False advertising laws are unconstitutional, but so convenient and useful, that almost everybody thinks, they are a good idea anyway.
I think, USA should've passed an amendment to explicitly allow the government to regulate certain speech without breaking the Constitution, instead of letting the courts "find" their right to do so after the umpteenth re-reading of the Constitution.
Such judicial reinterpretation of the law for political convenience (or even practical expedience) is just too slippery a slope... The "right" to abortion (mentioned nowhere in the Constitution) is not entirely unlike — a 20 year old's right "to do what she wants with her body" does not, for some reason, include alcohol consumption, but she has a "Constitutional" right to abortion...
First Amendment makes no such distinction, actually. It prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech, period. Certainly, limiting free speech to only certain "free speech areas" would qualify as "abridging" and thus be unconstitutional. I've already acknowledged, in my GP-posting, that the First Amendment does not force you to listen to someone else's speech, but banning all unsolicited business e-mails still seems wrong.
That's if you manage to overcome the (largely bogus) distinction between private and business — what if your friend signed up for Amway and wants to sign you up too? Will they be breaking your hypothetical law by inviting you to do so by e-mail?
I don't know, how to do such legislation correctly. But I can easily spot problems in other people's proposals...
And what if they stand on the public sidewalk and shout loudly enough for you to hear inside?
I will call the cops, even if they were silent — over trespassing (physical presence uninvited on my property). Spammers don't do that. To call spam "trespassing in your mailbox" (which, admit it, you were about to do) is far less legitimate, than, for example, call unauthorized MP3-download theft.
That's not illegal for anyone to do. Indeed, everyone one speaking to you does just that: force you to listen. What's your justification for banning businesses from doing so — by e-mail?
The distinction between people and businesses is artificial and usually does not exist. Your correspondent owns his own Corporation — am I a business or a person? And, of course, the wisely-worded First Amendment of the US Constitution makes no distinction either: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Since then, the courts have "found" that the so called "commercial" speech can be severely regulated: you can't lie in advertising, for example, and you can't advertise certain things (such as alcohol or cigarettes) in many cases.
Sure. Examined. But not banned altogether, as the GGP was proposing...
The answer was in my GP-post. Here it is repeated. If the IP is not tradeable, then the only way for artists to make money is by selling directly to end-user (consumer). Some artists can do this, and, indeed, some do — like, for example, Metallica and others, who have their own labels. But, as I already wrote, entrepreneurial acumen and artistic talent rarely overlap — a good artist is rarely a good businessmen. And even those, who could effectively sell their stuff, ought not to be forced to do so...
And even if all artists could market to consumers directly, who would pay them, other than the few true fans and a handful of charitable souls? Because, even if all "middlemen" disappeared tonight, you'd still be "sharing" MP3-files with the whole world and no one would pay the artists.
If we must look at each other's motivations and flaws, then, I think, it is far more likely, that you are simply trying to justify your own thievery. Yes, yes, I know, it is not exactly the same as thievery of tangible goods, and you are doing it in protest. Sure... You are uncomfortable enjoying something, that you did not pay for, so you try to dress it up as "civil disobedience" pretending, it is only the "greedy" middleman you are ripping off, not the "noble" artist. Sorry to break this bubble, but you are ripping off both, and neither of them "deserve" it.
The exact same rationale can be applied to every other law or tradition:
For this reason alone, the rationale is wrong — please, don't repeat it.
Or a good-shooting sailor discharged it — with perfectly respectable kill-ratio — at innocent fishermen? A real Navy made that mistake last November, for example.
Many (most?) ports don't allow armed ships to enter. Having even a gun on-board will, likely, (dis)qualify. "Packing some serious heat" will definitely do...
First Amendment be damned...
Yes, yes, their right to speak does not obligate you to listen, but by outlawing all unsolicited emails from businesses you actually do violate the First Amendment. It is a tricky dilemma and has little to do with "businesses owning government" — if anything, their having the government's ear helps prevent the kind of over-reaction you are showing...
Of course you can't anticipate it. Nor can you (the public/government) reasonably regulate every aspect of Internet service provision. Your only hope is competition — if a particular provider sucks, you can pick up a phone and switch to another. No campaigning, no petitioning, no marching or demonstrating — just call and switch... There are a few things in life, which can not be provided by anyone other than government (such as law enforcement or military). Everything else ought to be — exactly for this reason.
Oh, boy... This is so wrong on so many levels... Let's see...
The answer is, government ownership kills innovation — and leads to inferior service. You just don't realize it, because a) unlike with the Internet service — you've never seen anything better; and b) evidently, you lack imagination to realize, what could've been...
Right there you hit the nail on the head, and did not notice it! I emphasized it for in the quote above — the government distorts the market with its grants and subsidies, which ought to stop — providing telecommunication services has long ago stopped being about good service, and became about winning government grants.
This needs to change, but you, instead, want more government meddling... Yes, you want small town government to take over, what federal government is doing, but there is no difference in principle. Business ought to compete for the customers, not for government subsidies. That's the point.
The artist has voluntarily signed off rights to their music to the label — and was paid for it the amount, that both they and the label agreed on.
The label owns the music, that you like, and you owe them money, if you listen to it. Not to the artist, to the label. Get this into your head: intellectual property is tradeable, and ought to remain so for otherwise artists, designers, and scientists would not be able to sell the results of their (very much appreciated) labors to anyone, but the end-users.
Some of them might do well selling to end-users directly, but most would not. Entrepreneurial acumen and artistic (or scientific) gift do overlap, but infrequently so. By rejecting the rights of "middlemen" — be they music labels or patent-holders — to own intellectual property (a ripped-off artist gets your sympathy, but the label or "patent troll" gets nothing but scorn), you prevent the original creators from staying independent, forcing them to become employees of conglomerates, that not only creates, but also sells the intellectual property to end-users.
So, the copyright belongs to someone else, and they chose to use a lower-quality version. I don't see, how this gives your niece — although she appears in the video, she is not the owner of it — the right to post her own version...
Back to the point about advancing human progress, I don't think, a particular fashion model's success or failure have any effect on it...
Why exactly does it merit any research? This is not riddle posed by Nature — people devised this device (ha-ha), and know all the answers perfectly already, they just don't want to tell you. You are not advancing scientific progress by figuring out somebody's scheme.
You may be advancing your own knowledge and skills, but calling it "research" has no more merit, than paparazzis' "research" into celebrities' lives...
How long are you willing to wait, before confiscating someone's patent? It may take a while after getting a patent to "get going", for example.
Also, your approach completely destroys the concept of a purely research organization — one, that would concentrate on scientific discoveries, while leaving actual practical use of them to the highest bidder. Because if your logic is implemented, no one will bid for the patents, because everyone will know, that if the patent-holder does not sell to any one, you will place the discovery into public domain.
Which means, your system will favor giant corporations, able to combine research and manufacturing...
I wonder, if patent-holders are justified in doing anything with their holdings, except donating them to public domain — in your opinion...
You are a tiny minority, and you know it... Bush may have lost some military support since the linked article, but most in the military supported him — unlike the new President.
Now, now... Do we really need these slurs? Not sure, why chicken hawk has become such a derogatory term among Bush-hating leftists, but for a mature (Desert Storm was 18 years ago!) person to use it seems quite wrong. I suspect, you weren't anything more than an enlisted man, got out as soon as you could, and have been nourishing your Leftist Illiberalism in academia ever since...
Thank you for your service nonetheless, of course.
I suspect, you also don't want your source of military software to be equally available on all iPhones out there — such as Iranian and Russian ones in particular...
China is building up powerful clean power-stations, while the US is wasting billions on bullshit projects intended to keep people working, rather than doing something useful.
Why aren't we building these stations so as to be able to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal and whatever else gets burned to produce electricity here? The Chinese bloggers suspect, we aren't sure of the technology and want to test it in China first, but the truth is much less sinister — and much more worrying...
We have simply lost the drive and our ability to take bold steps and initiatives. Would I like a nuclear plant in my backyard? Yes, as a matter of fact, I would certainly prefer it to a coal-burning one (with its radioactive smoke) or to a wind-turbine, which would take up the entire plot to produce enough electricity for a single light-bulb.
Citation needed
Anybody still doubting, that piracy is a real threat to content-producers?
You are cherry-picking one aspect of car-making, that seems less lethal to you. Most of the code-writing for car-industry is not about car's electronics, but has to do with the car's manufacture — the awesome CAD packages (such as PRO/ENGINEER) are the "death-enablers".
Now, before you go back to the perceived differences in the intentions of code-writers working for auto- and military industries, let me remind you, that no one in the military intentionally targets the innocent. And that deaths of the innocents are the only lamentable (and, perhaps, reprehensible) part of using weapons.
Just as nobody in the car industry wants any deaths and crashes, nobody in the military wants "collateral damage". The GP's point was, such damage occurs in both fields anyway — and the car industry has a far worse record...
There is a fine line between merely caring for your customers and helping them get away with wrongs (be that wrong a crime or just a civil offense).
It is surprising, that it is legal, and they may be mistaken too — The Pirate Bay crew was just sentenced to a year in jail, however long them claimed, they did "nothing wrong".
I'm renovating a newly-bought house and wanted the excess heat from the server-room to be used to assist heating of the nearby office (and/or living room). The HVAC contractor said, he's never heard of anybody doing it, and that no equipment currently exists to do the job. He said, he's done a number of projects for data-centers (including a police department a few towns away), and the heat from them was always thrown into the atmosphere year-round, even if the same organization had a human-populated office in a building nearby or even on another floor of the same building...
If he was wrong, and intelligent equipment exists (or can be assembled from easy to acquire components), that can push the heat into another room, when that room needs heating (as per its thermostat), but vent outside, when it does not, please, tell me! Thanks!