> You forgot to quote the part where they are empowered to seize civilian facilities.
The summary is a gross lie.
Go read the actual executive order. There is no such place where empowerment to seize civilian facilities is described. In fact the order is just a directive to establish an emergency communications plan.
Slashdot can be really bad at times. This was one of the worst examples I've seen.
Counterfeit drugs are a legitimate problem. However the solution to that problem is not just IP enforcement, it's also programs to reduce prices by limiting monopolies, which reduces incentive.
It hasn't been a practical theocracy for a while, but the Queen is the head of the state church and the Church of England has representation in the House of Lords.
Well it is something of a loss in rights to treat it as your exclusive property, so I have some sympathy for the howling.
However that sympathy is well tempered by the abusive treatment that the monopoly cable owners inflict on their customers.
Ultimately the monopoly situation is really just unreasonable.
I happen to be in an area served by a traditional cable company as well as FIOS, so I have personal experience with both a monopoly situation and having competition. Competition is much nicer.
> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now
We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.
"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient."
Gorman is the president of KeyBank in Cleveland.
With the EU and China not growing, and the US able to grow worker productivity as fast as the economy there just isn't a need to hire.
What would change this is an increase in demand. But we are in the middle of a credit retrenchment (housing crash) so even near zero interest rates will do squat, and China and Europe demand is declining.
The Republicans are in for a rude shock if they think that they have the ability to change this. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to increase demand.
> If copyright were returned to anything resembling a moral framework like the one I just described, do you think people would be pirating everything like they are right now?
Yup. The vast bulk of what is pirated today is less than 10 years from original release.
The biggest thing I fear is that as I age I will lose the mental capability to manage my finances well enough to insure that my family will be able to continue without hardship.
My father was a brilliant man as an adult, a top scientist, but the last couple of years he definitely had dementia - and it showed in his accounts that I ended up dealing with as executor.
It didn't end up causing any problems for his family because we were able to pool resources to get through the couple of years it took to straighten things out. But it could have.
So I would worry at least as much about what will happen if you go into a long slow decline as what will happen if you were to just drop dead.
Once you kick that bucket any accounts in your name only will be frozen until probate is resolved. Attempts to access these accounts are criminal acts.
Safe deposit boxes in your name only ditto. You must have court assignment as executor to get into the box. It takes time to get that and if you don't have a will the court may appoint an executor.
To avoid this you want to set up joint accounts and beneficiaries on the accounts so that these accounts will automatically be transferred to the people you want them to go to without the probate wait.
You do want to have a list of account numbers somewhere - ideally that would be in the hands of a trusted person who is named in your will as executor.
Also you might want to get rid of any email delivery of account balances info you have. That mail delivery of information post demise can provide valuable information as the the existence and status of the account to your survivors.
Also you want real estate papers somewhere accessible for possible sale of property by the executor.
Bank accounts will potentially have restrictions as well. Be sure these have appropriate beneficiaries set up so your heirs have access without the long delays and legal folderall associated with probate.
Your most important measure lists Qatar as the wealthiest nation on Earth.
China has had some rather embarrassing incidents over the past couple of years, such as the story of Chen Guangcheng. They aren't really able to just do what they feel like.
>but how many of them do we later find out faked tests or results and years later are being sued for killing or harming thousands?
Faked results is very rare. So the answer is probably that cases where faked results result in killing thousands is zero.
> Not to mention the idea of gene patents and such.
If you followed the news in the field you'd realize gene patents are under severe challenge in the courts right now. There is a good chance that the logic of Bilsky will apply to them.
> for most of the psychological drugs out there, the pharmas don't really even know how they work
Knowing how something works has never been a requirement for patenting something, drug or otherwise. In fact it can be a hindrance because if you know how it works it can be argued that it is obvious. I actually had a patent once where I knew how it worked, and the attorney had me take that explanation out of the application because he thought the examiner would use it against me. This is a technology patent, not a science patent. HOWEVER the FDA regulatory process is increasingly focused on demonstrating how something works. Certainly you need to know the metabolic action of the drug even if you don't know exactly the way it affects the mind.
>but Apple or Samsung or Motorola don't deserve the same thing?
Go read the patents that these mobile phone makers are pushing. They are NOT the results of hundreds of millions of dollars of investments. They are trivial UI elements or simple processes like the classic one click order thing. And if they are at all profound they are implementations of algorithms, essentially math patents. They are either trivial or should not be patentable.
> Also, worth noting that the only reason pharmas invest so many years into their works and patents is because they have to: its called clinical trials.
What is the point to this statement? Are you proposing that we don't do clinical trials as a precursor to getting rid of patents for new drugs? If we did that we might as well get rid of the FDA too.
It's irrelevant WHY pharms do clinical trials. What's relevant is that so long as they have to pay the huge expenses for these it's going to be part of the cost equation for introduction of a new drug. And without patent protection they are going to be unable to recover these costs.
And if they can't well then there won't be private investment into drug development.
Slashdot Mirror
That dichotomy you sense is because the summary is complete baloney.
This is just a routine directive regarding emergency communications facilities run by the US government.
Ignore the summary and EPIC article, and go read the actual executive order. It is a routine band piece of administrative boredom.
> You forgot to quote the part where they are empowered to seize civilian facilities.
The summary is a gross lie.
Go read the actual executive order. There is no such place where empowerment to seize civilian facilities is described. In fact the order is just a directive to establish an emergency communications plan.
Slashdot can be really bad at times. This was one of the worst examples I've seen.
Oh pooh. The IRS has far more power to collect information on citizens.
The stuff they have on file about me is 100x more worrying than what some DPI thing could collect about me.
> Can I get some of that?
Buy some JPM stock if you want a piece of the action.
Counterfeit drugs are a legitimate problem. However the solution to that problem is not just IP enforcement, it's also programs to reduce prices by limiting monopolies, which reduces incentive.
Do you know what eventually happens if a country is in anarchy long enough that the people will do anything for order?
It's called military coup.
Truth. This happened to one of my employers. We ended up buying out of the contract.
Cost a major buttload plus screwed the company up for years.
Then they went on a re-engineering binge.
Put the final nail in the whole thing.
What a bunch of clowns running the thing. They got their ideas about IT from playing golf with other CEOs.
Decisions are made through representation.
See the Federalist No. 10.
I hope so. I'm tired of being in the same country as Rick Perry.
You mean like Great Britain's theocracy?
It hasn't been a practical theocracy for a while, but the Queen is the head of the state church and the Church of England has representation in the House of Lords.
[there that will stir things up a bit]
Scientology is a cult supported by Ponzi schemes and fraud, not a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Slatkin
Nothing goofball about it. It's far more pernicious than that.
Well it is something of a loss in rights to treat it as your exclusive property, so I have some sympathy for the howling.
However that sympathy is well tempered by the abusive treatment that the monopoly cable owners inflict on their customers.
Ultimately the monopoly situation is really just unreasonable.
I happen to be in an area served by a traditional cable company as well as FIOS, so I have personal experience with both a monopoly situation and having competition. Competition is much nicer.
It's simpler than that. Just handle it like the phone lines - the cable owner has to allow others to offer services on their infrastructure.
The howling would be awesome.
> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now
We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html
"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient."
Gorman is the president of KeyBank in Cleveland.
With the EU and China not growing, and the US able to grow worker productivity as fast as the economy there just isn't a need to hire.
What would change this is an increase in demand. But we are in the middle of a credit retrenchment (housing crash) so even near zero interest rates will do squat, and China and Europe demand is declining.
The Republicans are in for a rude shock if they think that they have the ability to change this. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to increase demand.
> If copyright were returned to anything resembling a moral framework like the one I just described, do you think people would be pirating everything like they are right now?
Yup. The vast bulk of what is pirated today is less than 10 years from original release.
You don't need equipment. Old hackers can do it by eye.
The biggest thing I fear is that as I age I will lose the mental capability to manage my finances well enough to insure that my family will be able to continue without hardship.
My father was a brilliant man as an adult, a top scientist, but the last couple of years he definitely had dementia - and it showed in his accounts that I ended up dealing with as executor.
It didn't end up causing any problems for his family because we were able to pool resources to get through the couple of years it took to straighten things out. But it could have.
So I would worry at least as much about what will happen if you go into a long slow decline as what will happen if you were to just drop dead.
Once you kick that bucket any accounts in your name only will be frozen until probate is resolved. Attempts to access these accounts are criminal acts.
Safe deposit boxes in your name only ditto. You must have court assignment as executor to get into the box. It takes time to get that and if you don't have a will the court may appoint an executor.
To avoid this you want to set up joint accounts and beneficiaries on the accounts so that these accounts will automatically be transferred to the people you want them to go to without the probate wait.
You do want to have a list of account numbers somewhere - ideally that would be in the hands of a trusted person who is named in your will as executor.
Also you might want to get rid of any email delivery of account balances info you have. That mail delivery of information post demise can provide valuable information as the the existence and status of the account to your survivors.
Also you want real estate papers somewhere accessible for possible sale of property by the executor.
Be careful. Once you join the choir invisible anything in your name will be subject to potential access restrictions.
That includes a safe deposit box that is in your name.
http://www.finweb.com/banking-credit/accessing-deceased-s-safe-deposit-box.html
Bank accounts will potentially have restrictions as well. Be sure these have appropriate beneficiaries set up so your heirs have access without the long delays and legal folderall associated with probate.
They did. It would have been a lot more to search 97 million documents by hand.
Your most important measure lists Qatar as the wealthiest nation on Earth.
China has had some rather embarrassing incidents over the past couple of years, such as the story of Chen Guangcheng. They aren't really able to just do what they feel like.
Perhaps you should rethink your ideas.
Haha I've haven't seen a good conspiracy rant for a long time. Thanks for the entertainment.
The Soviet Union used to have mandatory voting. Not a winning idea.
> NO. NOT AT ALL.
Common misconception. There are actually quite a few cases like this.
You can start by looking up Zoomracks.
Let's deconstruct your rant.
>but how many of them do we later find out faked tests or results and years later are being sued for killing or harming thousands?
Faked results is very rare. So the answer is probably that cases where faked results result in killing thousands is zero.
> Not to mention the idea of gene patents and such.
If you followed the news in the field you'd realize gene patents are under severe challenge in the courts right now. There is a good chance that the logic of Bilsky will apply to them.
> for most of the psychological drugs out there, the pharmas don't really even know how they work
Knowing how something works has never been a requirement for patenting something, drug or otherwise. In fact it can be a hindrance because if you know how it works it can be argued that it is obvious. I actually had a patent once where I knew how it worked, and the attorney had me take that explanation out of the application because he thought the examiner would use it against me. This is a technology patent, not a science patent. HOWEVER the FDA regulatory process is increasingly focused on demonstrating how something works. Certainly you need to know the metabolic action of the drug even if you don't know exactly the way it affects the mind.
>but Apple or Samsung or Motorola don't deserve the same thing?
Go read the patents that these mobile phone makers are pushing. They are NOT the results of hundreds of millions of dollars of investments. They are trivial UI elements or simple processes like the classic one click order thing. And if they are at all profound they are implementations of algorithms, essentially math patents. They are either trivial or should not be patentable.
> Also, worth noting that the only reason pharmas invest so many years into their works and patents is because they have to: its called clinical trials.
What is the point to this statement? Are you proposing that we don't do clinical trials as a precursor to getting rid of patents for new drugs? If we did that we might as well get rid of the FDA too.
It's irrelevant WHY pharms do clinical trials. What's relevant is that so long as they have to pay the huge expenses for these it's going to be part of the cost equation for introduction of a new drug. And without patent protection they are going to be unable to recover these costs.
And if they can't well then there won't be private investment into drug development.