So does this mean using recycled paper is actually bad? Because otherwise the paper manufacturers would be replanting a lot more new trees to keep up with the demand for virgin paper.
It is loosely related to ITAR restrictions, but the specific subject is Gore's backdoors. He used the relaxation of ITAR as a carrot to get the back doors built in.
They started trying in the 90s under Clinton's reign, with Al Gore as the point man. Luckily resistance from people and businesses was enough to kill the Clipper Chip and Key Escrow. over 10 years later, I guess it's time for another round of facists to try it again.
The military already has millions of computers with access to the Internet. All it would take is to make the botnet client part of the standard load. The next time China decides to hack us, DDOS them back.
UN opinions should be considered torture because they often cause emotional pain to any intelligent people who read them.
Right, let's forget tasers because they're "torture" and go back to only bashing in skulls with night sticks and blowing holes in people with handguns.
This is as much a "free ride" for the broadcast industry as anything, but it actually is putting the US Government way ahead.
I read a book a several years ago about budget smoke and mirrors in Congress, and it mentioned that Congress already used IIRC 6 billion dollars of the then-planned spectrum auction to balance the budget way back when. 6 billion because that's all they thought the auction would bring in, so that's what they took. Yep, they already spent it, only got lucky and got a little more than planned.
Stuff still held by the orginal creater, who's a person, can still be held for life, or the 20 year deal, which ever is longer
Even life is too long. It is supposed to be for a reasonable period in which to make a profit to encourage further writing. There's no more writing if you're dead.
14 was the original, extendable to 28. But we live longer now so I say 20 years extendable to 40 years for everyone but lower fees for personal copyright holders. The initial 20 or any current extension is transferrable to the estate of the deceased, or to the buyer of a bankrupt corporation's copyrights, but after that copyright will expire at the end of the term.
The big thing we need to do is go back to registered copyrights only. Nothing is copyrighted unless registered. We make registration a simple and fairly cheap automated online process, including a web service API at the Copyright Office for ever-changing web content, running accounts to pay the fees. Give it 10 years to kick in, all non-renewed and non-registered works are in the public domain at that time. No more orphan works.
Why? Copyright is designed to give you profit as incentive to create. You don't need a copyright if you're not looking for profit.
What I just wrote is copyrighted, it's insane.
What about the treaties? They are meaningless. The Constitution is the highest law of this land, and the treaties disagree with it, therefore the treaties are invalid.
You mean allegations that research funded by the energy industry is somehow biased, as opposed to research funded by politicians hoping to get elected on a wave of paranoia?
Truth that there was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change?
Truth that Climate Change is seen as a mechanism to funnel money from rich countries to poor ones? Didn't watch the Bali conference too closely, did you?
Yes, some people actually honestly disagree with the mantra and greed that fuels it.
When they nail you to a position. In the 70s it was Global Cooling, then they switched to Global Warming when that didn't pan out, and now they're going with Climate Change so they're right no matter what, and the funding keeps coming in and the politicians keep gaining power.
Funding? What? People like to use oil company funding as a derogatory. They forget that politicians vested in Climate Change also provide pro-CC funding from their vast financial resources (us).
For me, the final blow to credibility is that the solutions often seem to involve massive amounts of money going from rich countries to poor ones, one big welfare scheme. It reminds me of the old Bloom County missile defense system, wrap a trillion dollar bills around the planet.
The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.
That's why I support making it easier to pierce the corporate veil. If the label CEOs knew about these tactics then they should go to jail as conspirators and be personally subject to civil penalties.
Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers!
True, it's mainly due to increased taxes enacted by over-spending, nanny-state governments.
Barring future lawsuits is a serious last-resort for the courts. Jack Thompson has been abusing the courts for years, and only now has the court decided to tell him he must have another attorney sign-off on any actions. He can still sue, he just can't do it himself.
The worst (best for us) I see happening for the RIAA is they are ordered to change tactics: their investigators must be licensed, the collection centers shut down or tactics changed, no more dropped John Doe suits, and they must have prima facie evidence before bringing suit, etc.
That's a good thing. I wouldn't want any copyright holder barred from defending his copyrights.
Part of the complaint is that many innocent people will settle out of court in order to avoid being financially ruined by the RIAA in court. That doesn't necessarily include judgment -- the fees during trial are enough to ruin most people.
You do not own the text of the book you write. It is not your property. It is knowledge, it cannot be property. In this country there is no natural right, no ownership at the moment of creation, of such works -- they belong to everyone by default.
However, to encourage people to create such works, the Constitution authorized the granting of a limited monopoly right to them. They belong to the public, but for a limited time (was 14 years) you have certain rights to those works that nobody else has. With some exceptions (Fair Use, etc.), only you have the rights to reproduction, performance, etc.
By the very concept and definition, it is not stealing, it is not theft. It is infringement on that granted limited monopoly right.
Big installations like Fort Sill or Fort Bragg control access along the roads, but they also extend far into the wilderness where it's hard to completely control access. Go to Fort Irwin or White Sands Missile range, and it's impossible.
Blu-ray now how has to face network distribution so no I think calling blu-ray the winner is way optimistic at this point.
DVD will last a while, but Blu-ray won over HD-DVD, which means it is the format that will eventually supplant DVD. It may have competition from online distribution, but DVD will go away in large. It's just the nature of formats.
So the 360 has had one die shrink. Well the 360 is still having some heat issues and I am sure that Nintendo wouldn't object to even higher profits for the Wii.
The 360's problem isn't just the heat. A lot of consumer devices get hot and don't fail. Microsoft rushed the 360 out with poor design, testing, manufacturing and quality control. The die shrink just alleviated the problems a bit by producing less heat. And yes, Nintendo will eventually have a shrink, but they aren't under the pressure to do so that the others are. They can wait until 45nm is even cheaper before switching.
On the other hand, IBM couldn't even keep Apple happily supplied with G5s...
The current crop of consoles are giving IBM far more volume than Apple ever did. And these customers don't constantly need faster and more capable chips to keep up with the competition, just the same chips shrunk every once in a while. The G5 was a lot of R&D and production for a relatively small run.
Because Blue-Ray hasn't won the Format wars. DVD has.
Blu-ray won. Just like DVD will live with VHS for years, so Blu-ray will live with DVD. The only point we're looking for is the inevitable one where Blu-ray sales surpass DVD sales.
IBM also makes the PPC based CPUs for the 360 and Wii:) So they could also see a drop in power and price as well.
The 360 has already had a die shrink from 90 to 65 and prices are relatively steady. The Wii doesn't have a pressing need for a die shrink like the others since it already uses little power and Nintendo has made a profit on each one sold. No, IBM won't abandon its profitable customers, but don't think prices are coming down any time soon.
The only way any of this gets up to the federal level is if a state's actions infringe on the rights of a person as a citizen of the United States. Your political office example is explicitly precluded by the federal constitution. Other restrictions will or will not be precluded by either the federal constitution or the individual state's constitution.
However, we do have this setup so that people can move freely between states in a marketplace of governments. Alabama's too Bible-thumping for you? Move to Michigan. Michigan isn't a right-to-work state? Move to Alabama, which is. New York taxing you to oblivion? Move to New Hampshire.
a "political theory" (read: [slander omitted]) based on giving as little as possible to public institutions, is going to release the floodgates on massive charitable giving
Giving to public institutions is encouraged. Public institutions taking your money at gun point is not. In 2006 there were 902,270 charities in the United States with 1,150,564,786,708 in donations. This does not count small private charitable giving that is not registered.
Slashdot Mirror
It is loosely related to ITAR restrictions, but the specific subject is Gore's backdoors. He used the relaxation of ITAR as a carrot to get the back doors built in.
They started trying in the 90s under Clinton's reign, with Al Gore as the point man. Luckily resistance from people and businesses was enough to kill the Clipper Chip and Key Escrow. over 10 years later, I guess it's time for another round of facists to try it again.
Add trade secrets.
The military already has millions of computers with access to the Internet. All it would take is to make the botnet client part of the standard load. The next time China decides to hack us, DDOS them back.
UN opinions should be considered torture because they often cause emotional pain to any intelligent people who read them.
Right, let's forget tasers because they're "torture" and go back to only bashing in skulls with night sticks and blowing holes in people with handguns.
I'm white, male and American. I get blamed for everything else on this planet, so why not that too?
The reparations movement has already shown you don't need to have even been born at the time to be guilty, so there's precedent.
So the Sahara is our fault? Damn Romans and their SUVs.
14 was the original, extendable to 28. But we live longer now so I say 20 years extendable to 40 years for everyone but lower fees for personal copyright holders. The initial 20 or any current extension is transferrable to the estate of the deceased, or to the buyer of a bankrupt corporation's copyrights, but after that copyright will expire at the end of the term.
The big thing we need to do is go back to registered copyrights only. Nothing is copyrighted unless registered. We make registration a simple and fairly cheap automated online process, including a web service API at the Copyright Office for ever-changing web content, running accounts to pay the fees. Give it 10 years to kick in, all non-renewed and non-registered works are in the public domain at that time. No more orphan works.
Why? Copyright is designed to give you profit as incentive to create. You don't need a copyright if you're not looking for profit.
What I just wrote is copyrighted, it's insane.
What about the treaties? They are meaningless. The Constitution is the highest law of this land, and the treaties disagree with it, therefore the treaties are invalid.
You mean allegations that research funded by the energy industry is somehow biased, as opposed to research funded by politicians hoping to get elected on a wave of paranoia?
Truth that there was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change?
Truth that Climate Change is seen as a mechanism to funnel money from rich countries to poor ones? Didn't watch the Bali conference too closely, did you?
Yes, some people actually honestly disagree with the mantra and greed that fuels it.
"Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down."
When they nail you to a position. In the 70s it was Global Cooling, then they switched to Global Warming when that didn't pan out, and now they're going with Climate Change so they're right no matter what, and the funding keeps coming in and the politicians keep gaining power.
Funding? What? People like to use oil company funding as a derogatory. They forget that politicians vested in Climate Change also provide pro-CC funding from their vast financial resources (us).
For me, the final blow to credibility is that the solutions often seem to involve massive amounts of money going from rich countries to poor ones, one big welfare scheme. It reminds me of the old Bloom County missile defense system, wrap a trillion dollar bills around the planet.
They were pretty much only a one-hit-wonder with "Beauty."
Barring future lawsuits is a serious last-resort for the courts. Jack Thompson has been abusing the courts for years, and only now has the court decided to tell him he must have another attorney sign-off on any actions. He can still sue, he just can't do it himself.
The worst (best for us) I see happening for the RIAA is they are ordered to change tactics: their investigators must be licensed, the collection centers shut down or tactics changed, no more dropped John Doe suits, and they must have prima facie evidence before bringing suit, etc.
That's a good thing. I wouldn't want any copyright holder barred from defending his copyrights.
Part of the complaint is that many innocent people will settle out of court in order to avoid being financially ruined by the RIAA in court. That doesn't necessarily include judgment -- the fees during trial are enough to ruin most people.
Let's start with the baseline:
You do not own the text of the book you write. It is not your property. It is knowledge, it cannot be property. In this country there is no natural right, no ownership at the moment of creation, of such works -- they belong to everyone by default.
However, to encourage people to create such works, the Constitution authorized the granting of a limited monopoly right to them. They belong to the public, but for a limited time (was 14 years) you have certain rights to those works that nobody else has. With some exceptions (Fair Use, etc.), only you have the rights to reproduction, performance, etc.
By the very concept and definition, it is not stealing, it is not theft. It is infringement on that granted limited monopoly right.
Microsoft/Toshiba bribed other studios with hundreds of millions to go HD-DVD.
Big installations like Fort Sill or Fort Bragg control access along the roads, but they also extend far into the wilderness where it's hard to completely control access. Go to Fort Irwin or White Sands Missile range, and it's impossible.
The only way any of this gets up to the federal level is if a state's actions infringe on the rights of a person as a citizen of the United States. Your political office example is explicitly precluded by the federal constitution. Other restrictions will or will not be precluded by either the federal constitution or the individual state's constitution.
However, we do have this setup so that people can move freely between states in a marketplace of governments. Alabama's too Bible-thumping for you? Move to Michigan. Michigan isn't a right-to-work state? Move to Alabama, which is. New York taxing you to oblivion? Move to New Hampshire.