Here is a very rough and incomplete list of the sorts of challenges that might be appropriate:
Medical challenges, such a cure for cancer or other major diseases.
Technological "holy grails", such as artificial intelligence, teleportation, molecular assemblers (true nanotechnology), cold fusion, or a believable virtual reality system
Major global challenges, such as the various UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) announced by the world's leaders at the UN in 2000 at the Millennium Summit.
It's a lot easier to simply threaten to take the entire operation to Mexico if the regulations are too restrictive. It's a perfectly good place to launch from, and I'm sure Mexico isn't going to object to having a few millionaire holidaymakers crossing through their country, and a substantial investment from a new industry.
The motor companies want to build a better car. There's nothing in it for them to rely on petroleum, apart from the fact that that's what their customers want. If there was a decent infrastructure for hydrogen, ethanol, or other alternative fuelled vehicles, and people wanted them, then the motor companies would provide them.
But there's also an incentive for the petrochemical industry to invest. Oil will eventually run out. We will need a replacement. The oil companies are well positioned to take advantage of this. They already have experience in very large scale chemical operations, as well as fuel distribution, (i.e fuel station forecourts). Changing the primary production will involve a fairly substantial change, but it will have to happen eventually, and they know this. They have an incentive to get a decent sized chunk of what will be the market.
How is Medicare and social security funded? If it's from tax revenue, then it's paid for by the government. If there's some other sort of levy that Medicare and social security use, then it's funded by the people.
I get a little irritated that so many journalists don't seem to be able to shake the notion that "the internet" and "the web" are equivalent. If they just wanted free web access, they could go to the library. What they're more likely to be interested in is large downloads.
while others use the opportunity to watch users entering passwords, credit card numbers and other information.
Isn't credit card information typically encrypted by the time it gets onto the network? I can understand not securing home networks, but not having a secure site for credit cards is unforgivable.
But then we have... the Stonegate resident who granted access to a suspect in August noticed a charge to an online store on his American Express card.
So how did they get the credit card information? Why is he so sure that it was the evil wardrivers? Credit card fraud has been going on for longer than wireless networks. Okay, someone could have got into his computer and snooped around a little, or installed a keylogger. But if that would be quite possible to do even if they didn't have a wireless network. Simply go through the internet.
A better analogy is that people are accessing other peoples internet service because they don't have a clue about security. That is - lose this obsession with the right analogy.
Look, an analogy is simply a means to illustrate a concept. If you think an analogy is inappropriate, say so. Don't try to fix it so that you get an equally inaccurate idea that is more fitting to your own prejudices.
Yes. The idea is that an annual fee for use of a television is used for funding the BBC. Since the BBC gets the whole of the licence fee, and is not paid for by the government, this gives them a certain degree of autonomy and freedom from government interference.
The argument against it is that it's an extortion racket, since you have to pay the fee even if you never watch a BBC channel. The argument in favour is that the BBC is a world recognised institution, and the funding mechanism is neccesary to enable it to function.
Interesting. Does the FCC have the power to prevent import and manufacture? For example, could I acquire a 10GW transmitter if I had no intention of ever using it? (Exactly why I'd want to transmit with that power is another matter entirely).
You forgot "Left-side" -vs- "Right-side" for automobiles.
Erm, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and several other countries drive on the right. Great Britain (with the unusual exception of Savoy Court) and The Republic of Ireland drive on the left.
I'd say this is a problem with the courts rather than patents.
If it wasn't patents, then people can still sue for all sorts of other reasons. Since defending costs more than a settlement, people will usually settle.
By extension, this applies to any internet discussion forum. The law as stated only applies to usenet because at the time, Godwin didn't have any other forums to test his hypothesis.
I'm surprised nobody has ever publically pressured them into admitting this though. What is a good answer (for the telemarketing company) if a judge asks why they're not pleased about the DNC for the reasons mentioned?
Doh! IHBT. I apologise for being slow. Well, I realised the end bit was just a joke, but you did make some interesting points. Mainly that to make a law regarding copyright infringement, you need the RIAA's backing.
So, I'll finish off with "You soulless minion of the evil copyright monopolists! All you care about is profit, when hard working millionaire artists are starving!"
I don't think a real solution is going to be possible until some radical event intervenes, most likely including the collapse of the RIAA. The RIAA will die, but the music industry will get along just fine without them.
Yes. Causing a cartel to collapse can take time, but it will happen if someone finds a way to pay the musicians more, and charge the customers less.
A lawsuit does not affect your future employment where as many types of convictions - even misdeamenors - can.
Yes. The idea needs a little work. I think it should be possible to charge someone, and have them pay the fine without even having to identify them.
The problem is that you are shifting the "wronged" party from the RIAA to the state by criminalizing this.
I'm not sure it's too much of a problem shifting the wronged party to the state. A lot of crimes, such as trespassing and fraud are dealt with by the state even though the wronged party is not not the state.
It needs to stay a civil matter.
It depends. As I said, I don't think that the civil courts should punish people. I think that the plaintiff should be required to show that they had made the loss that they're claiming. Sadly, the law doesn;t seem to work like that.
Because this would actually reduce the number of file sharers, allow them to sue a lot more people, and be a lot more popular with their customers.
Yes, they can sue people for a lot of money. This takes a lot of time and effort. It is not easy to do. They probably make a loss filing these lawsuits. By easy, I mean really really trivially easy. Writing a parking ticket level of easy. Sending a DMCA notice and then filing a lawsuit costs a heap of money.
Under the NET act it's already a FELONY punishable by up to five years in federal prison.
Which is an unpopular penalty. Far too many people use kazaa. It makes a politician who supports it look bad, and costs the state a lot of money keeping people in prison, as well as the loss of a productive member of society. And it doesn't do anything to benefit the record industry.
The DMCA already makes it easy to find and go after file sharers. They have already filed thousands of cases.
My proposal would make it possible to fine every single file sharer in the entire country, for the cost of downloading a single song per person.
The RIAA is already getting several thousand dollars to settle each and every case, rightly OR wrongly accused. It would cost the defendant ten times that much just to BEGIN to fight such a case.
And some people think this is unfair. While some members of congress are firmly in the RIAA's pocket, others are a lot more concerned with a fair legal system. A settlement in the thousands of pounds, and a legal bill in the tens of thousands to fight it is not a fair legal system. It's a totalitarian system. Plus, it costs the RIAA about as much as they receive, and makes them look like bullies. A small fine would make it look like they were just protecting their rights.
Come on, be realistic man! If you want to find a solution to this problem you have to be willing to COMPROMISE! If you want to get the RIAA to come to the negotiating table. You have to actually offer them something. You have to look at what the law is now, look at what the RIAA wants, and find a solution, make a deal, split the difference! You have to be willing to meet them half way!
But who cares about what the RIAA think. You don't need their support. The idea is to achieve their stated aims. This would do so. People would be risking a $100 fine to share files. A fine that would very likely be imposed. The RIAA wants to reduce piracy. This would do so.
Actually, I think the solution would be to simply make it a misdemeanor to upload or download music to or from the general public without permission of the copyright holder. Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100), and make it easy to actually find and charge the file sharers, and very easy to fight if you're wrongly accused.
My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.
Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.
Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.
and got completely lost in the legalspeak; how the hell is anyone supposed to know if they're infringing a patent when you can't even understand WTF the patent means?!
I have no idea. I remeber in the past, I searched the patent database, hoping to find a solution to a specific problem. Despite being fairly well read in the subject matter, with most of the patents I couldn't work out whether they solved the problem or not.
I thought they were meant to be understandable to someone with reasonable knowledge of the domain of the invention. I thought the idea was to share the knowledge.
n.b. I have seen a few patents that are clearly described, easy to understand, and clearly written with the intention that other people license the invention, and write a version of it, but they seem to be theexception rather than the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
I put a 'Best viewed using a computer!' notice up on a site I built.
THOSE OF US WHO GET INTERNET ACCESS VIA TELEGRAPH FIND THIS DISCRIMINATORY STOP WE DONT ALL HAVE COMPUTERS STOP SO PLEASE STOP
Along with a 'Web server powered by electricity'...
SOME PEOPLE I KNOW STILL USE SMOKE SIGNALS STOP
Here is a very rough and incomplete list of the sorts of challenges that might be appropriate:
Why would they need to? What's being done is stealing.
The original owner still has it. Therefore it is not stealing.
It's a lot easier to simply threaten to take the entire operation to Mexico if the regulations are too restrictive. It's a perfectly good place to launch from, and I'm sure Mexico isn't going to object to having a few millionaire holidaymakers crossing through their country, and a substantial investment from a new industry.
Anyone want to donate an island for space travel? At least for launches?
You mean like Tracey Island
I think you're being too cynical there.
The motor companies want to build a better car. There's nothing in it for them to rely on petroleum, apart from the fact that that's what their customers want. If there was a decent infrastructure for hydrogen, ethanol, or other alternative fuelled vehicles, and people wanted them, then the motor companies would provide them.
But there's also an incentive for the petrochemical industry to invest. Oil will eventually run out. We will need a replacement. The oil companies are well positioned to take advantage of this. They already have experience in very large scale chemical operations, as well as fuel distribution, (i.e fuel station forecourts). Changing the primary production will involve a fairly substantial change, but it will have to happen eventually, and they know this. They have an incentive to get a decent sized chunk of what will be the market.
How is Medicare and social security funded? If it's from tax revenue, then it's paid for by the government. If there's some other sort of levy that Medicare and social security use, then it's funded by the people.
The BBC is not funded by the government. It's funded by the public through the licence fee. The government never gets to see it.
Am I the only one who read that as, "British Pornographic Institute"?
Nope. The guy who posted just before you did as well.
Some want free Web access,
I get a little irritated that so many journalists don't seem to be able to shake the notion that "the internet" and "the web" are equivalent. If they just wanted free web access, they could go to the library. What they're more likely to be interested in is large downloads.
while others use the opportunity to watch users entering passwords, credit card numbers and other information.
Isn't credit card information typically encrypted by the time it gets onto the network? I can understand not securing home networks, but not having a secure site for credit cards is unforgivable.
But then we have... the Stonegate resident who granted access to a suspect in August noticed a charge to an online store on his American Express card.
So how did they get the credit card information? Why is he so sure that it was the evil wardrivers? Credit card fraud has been going on for longer than wireless networks. Okay, someone could have got into his computer and snooped around a little, or installed a keylogger. But if that would be quite possible to do even if they didn't have a wireless network. Simply go through the internet.
A better analogy is that people are accessing other peoples internet service because they don't have a clue about security. That is - lose this obsession with the right analogy.
Look, an analogy is simply a means to illustrate a concept. If you think an analogy is inappropriate, say so. Don't try to fix it so that you get an equally inaccurate idea that is more fitting to your own prejudices.
Yes. The idea is that an annual fee for use of a television is used for funding the BBC. Since the BBC gets the whole of the licence fee, and is not paid for by the government, this gives them a certain degree of autonomy and freedom from government interference.
The argument against it is that it's an extortion racket, since you have to pay the fee even if you never watch a BBC channel. The argument in favour is that the BBC is a world recognised institution, and the funding mechanism is neccesary to enable it to function.
Interesting. Does the FCC have the power to prevent import and manufacture? For example, could I acquire a 10GW transmitter if I had no intention of ever using it? (Exactly why I'd want to transmit with that power is another matter entirely).
You forgot "Left-side" -vs- "Right-side" for automobiles.
Erm, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and several other countries drive on the right. Great Britain (with the unusual exception of Savoy Court) and The Republic of Ireland drive on the left.
I'd say this is a problem with the courts rather than patents.
If it wasn't patents, then people can still sue for all sorts of other reasons. Since defending costs more than a settlement, people will usually settle.
Even ten I don't think they'll believe it.
One you get too attached to a theory, it's very difficult to let go.
By extension, this applies to any internet discussion forum. The law as stated only applies to usenet because at the time, Godwin didn't have any other forums to test his hypothesis.
I'm surprised nobody has ever publically pressured them into admitting this though. What is a good answer (for the telemarketing company) if a judge asks why they're not pleased about the DNC for the reasons mentioned?
Doh! IHBT. I apologise for being slow. Well, I realised the end bit was just a joke, but you did make some interesting points. Mainly that to make a law regarding copyright infringement, you need the RIAA's backing.
So, I'll finish off with "You soulless minion of the evil copyright monopolists! All you care about is profit, when hard working millionaire artists are starving!"
I don't think a real solution is going to be possible until some radical event intervenes, most likely including the collapse of the RIAA. The RIAA will die, but the music industry will get along just fine without them.
Yes. Causing a cartel to collapse can take time, but it will happen if someone finds a way to pay the musicians more, and charge the customers less.
I guess you have never seen the FBI warning before a movie
ERm... Yes... I'm not quite sure I see your point.
or read the law.
That is interesting. What does that have to do with anything? I was suggesting that it would be a good idea to change the law.
A lawsuit does not affect your future employment where as many types of convictions - even misdeamenors - can.
Yes. The idea needs a little work. I think it should be possible to charge someone, and have them pay the fine without even having to identify them.
The problem is that you are shifting the "wronged" party from the RIAA to the state by criminalizing this.
I'm not sure it's too much of a problem shifting the wronged party to the state. A lot of crimes, such as trespassing and fraud are dealt with by the state even though the wronged party is not not the state.
It needs to stay a civil matter.
It depends. As I said, I don't think that the civil courts should punish people. I think that the plaintiff should be required to show that they had made the loss that they're claiming. Sadly, the law doesn;t seem to work like that.
Why would the RIAA support that?
Because this would actually reduce the number of file sharers, allow them to sue a lot more people, and be a lot more popular with their customers.
Yes, they can sue people for a lot of money. This takes a lot of time and effort. It is not easy to do. They probably make a loss filing these lawsuits. By easy, I mean really really trivially easy. Writing a parking ticket level of easy. Sending a DMCA notice and then filing a lawsuit costs a heap of money.
Under the NET act it's already a FELONY punishable by up to five years in federal prison.
Which is an unpopular penalty. Far too many people use kazaa. It makes a politician who supports it look bad, and costs the state a lot of money keeping people in prison, as well as the loss of a productive member of society. And it doesn't do anything to benefit the record industry.
The DMCA already makes it easy to find and go after file sharers. They have already filed thousands of cases.
My proposal would make it possible to fine every single file sharer in the entire country, for the cost of downloading a single song per person.
The RIAA is already getting several thousand dollars to settle each and every case, rightly OR wrongly accused. It would cost the defendant ten times that much just to BEGIN to fight such a case.
And some people think this is unfair. While some members of congress are firmly in the RIAA's pocket, others are a lot more concerned with a fair legal system. A settlement in the thousands of pounds, and a legal bill in the tens of thousands to fight it is not a fair legal system. It's a totalitarian system. Plus, it costs the RIAA about as much as they receive, and makes them look like bullies. A small fine would make it look like they were just protecting their rights.
Come on, be realistic man! If you want to find a solution to this problem you have to be willing to COMPROMISE! If you want to get the RIAA to come to the negotiating table. You have to actually offer them something. You have to look at what the law is now, look at what the RIAA wants, and find a solution, make a deal, split the difference! You have to be willing to meet them half way!
But who cares about what the RIAA think. You don't need their support. The idea is to achieve their stated aims. This would do so. People would be risking a $100 fine to share files. A fine that would very likely be imposed. The RIAA wants to reduce piracy. This would do so.
Actually, I think the solution would be to simply make it a misdemeanor to upload or download music to or from the general public without permission of the copyright holder. Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100), and make it easy to actually find and charge the file sharers, and very easy to fight if you're wrongly accused.
My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.
Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.
Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.
and got completely lost in the legalspeak; how the hell is anyone supposed to know if they're infringing a patent when you can't even understand WTF the patent means?!
I have no idea. I remeber in the past, I searched the patent database, hoping to find a solution to a specific problem. Despite being fairly well read in the subject matter, with most of the patents I couldn't work out whether they solved the problem or not.
I thought they were meant to be understandable to someone with reasonable knowledge of the domain of the invention. I thought the idea was to share the knowledge.
n.b. I have seen a few patents that are clearly described, easy to understand, and clearly written with the intention that other people license the invention, and write a version of it, but they seem to be theexception rather than the rule.
Whoever wrote your file manager likely doesn't have a billion or so kicking around.
ehm... Wiuldn't this be the file manager that comes with Microsoft Windows? I think they have a little bit of spare cash.