> Well, I'll stick to my point. We can do this now. So, why aren't we? Why are we going to suck oil until we go blue in the face and leave nothing in reserve?
The obvious answer is that it's cheaper than the alternatives. It's not really rational to expect that we'll stop using a resource that's available now, with an already-exisiting distribution infrastructure, for no reason other than that we need to stretch it out over some indeterminate length of time in the future.
> I'm thinking of my kids, but longer term, we're due another ice age real soon now. Failing that, god will drop a rock on us sooner or later. Our descendants are going to have to bootstrap themselves from wood burning stoves to nuclear power. Good luck to them.
What? Why would you think that they'd have to do this? By the time that next ice age rolls around, or the big rock falls, how can you know what we'll use for energy? Besides, why would they progress from wood to nuclear power at all? I can personally think of several options better than that, and I can't predict the future any better than you. You seem to think that we need to move away from fossil fuels right away, and I don't see anything in your argument to explain why. Yes, they're running out, but what's the point to having a huge world reserve of oil by moving away from oil entirely? Doesn't that defeat the use of having the reserves, if nothing you do requires that reserve? As the supply gets harder to provide, the price will rise, and when it rises high enough, we'll move to a different source of energy. Expecting the human race to do anything else is irrationally Utopian.
> In the event that your accelerator sticks and you can't unstick it. Shift to neutral and let the engine blow.
It's better to step on the brake and turn off the ignition switch. Unless your brakes are in bad shape they'll be able to slow the car significantly even with the accelerator all the way down, and switching off the key will stop the engine dead.
> And, duh, how do you propose to complete the loop on that one? The only thing that could "prove" someone guilty is software that is checking itself in the first place, which you appear to declare shouldn't be done unless one is guilty to being with. Hoist by your own petard, or caught by your own 22 as it were.
Hoist by your own, sir. The fact that it's difficult to prove someone guilty does not excuse violation of my privacy rights to make their jobs easier. If they have reason to believe I'm stealing, they can press for a BSA-style audit. If they can't get enough proof for that, that's not my problem. Would you allow police to come into your home without a warrant or probable cause to search for illegal drugs just because that would make it easier for the police to catch drug dealers?
> Any piece of software that has a price tag has the absolute right to 'protect' itself against use that is inconsistent with the software license.
Um, this is limited by proper consequence. That protection must not break any laws or perform actions that are considered excessive. Besides, if I buy a piece of software legally, and then it serreptitiously sends my MAC address to its author, you'd have a very hard case proving that it's defending itself from inconsistent use, unless you agree with the logic put forward in the last paragraph.
> This hue and cry over privacy in this regard is so tiresome and is mainly from those trying to keep 'private' the fact that they're too damned cheap to pay for something they want to use.
Here's the relevance problem: the same hue and cry that pirates use is also applicable to falsely accused, legitimate users (and in the cases of some spyware, innocent bystanders). The fact that some of the affected parties are guilty does not excuse the fact that some are not.
> Out of all the professions, engineers have the ability to kill the most people in the least amount of time through incompetence.
Incorrect. Pilots, for example, or bus drivers, or demolitions team leaders, or soldiers or firefighters all have higher risk-to-public exposure.
> But, a guy who is an "engineer" and doesn't know hiw head from his ass can design a house/dam/building/bridge/etc. that can kill rather a lot of people.
I do hope you realize that none of the things you describe are designed by a single person in any case. Therefore, a single person's incompetence is very unlikely to cause grave injury. Certainly it's possible, but it happens so seldom that it's front page news. To give you proof, out of thousands of dams built over the last 100 years, how many have failed due to design flaws (as opposed to natural disasters or warfare)? I can only think of one. Therefore, while I agree that you're right about engineering credentials being very important, it's not for the reasons you suggest.
> The same thing could happen in the real world...that's why the treasury is so closely monitored. Old bills are burned and new bills are minted (printed), the quantities are controlled so as not to cause massive inflation.
Well, bills are destroyed and reprinted because they wear out, not so much for monitoring purposes. And the amount of printed money in circulation is miniscule compared to the amount of money in the economy, so printing more bills does not realistically matter at all.
You can already fine someone for proven financial loss due to damages, if you can prove that they were negligent in allowing the attack. We in the U.S. call those fines "damages", and they're pressed in civil court.
> However, your statement assumes that people believe kids when they accuse adults.
My statement assumed nothing of the sort. It didn't even address that issue. While I understand, and sympathize completely, your comment is irrelevant to mine. Framing someone for a crime they didn't commit is wrong, in all cases. Fairness and justice for crimes already committed do not figure into the equation. Yes, it sucks, but that solution is not a solution.
> So, using that as an example and considering how much more common computers are in every day life than cars (know anyone how hasn't driven in the past 12 months? Now, know anyone who hasn't touched a computer in any way shape or form in the same time period?), why don't we have compulsory "basic operation" licsenses for computers?
You need to get out of the area you live in a bit more if you think that computers are more common in everyday use than cars.
> Think about it this way; Truck drivers are forced to undergo rigerous driving training (in the form of logged experience and lessons from qualified staff) before they're allowed to sit for their license and operate the tool they use to make a living. Builders are required to undergo at least two years of apprenticeship plus TAFE (think community college) courses before they can build any type of large structure. People who pilot any form of marine vessel are required to sit a test and get their license before they can command a vessel capable of going over a certain speed/weighing more than a certain tonnage. Hell, even short-order *COOKS* are required to undergoe some form of food preperation and service training before most places will give them a job.
Um, in every single one of the cases you cite, the cost of failure can be fatal. Operating a computer that doesn't run fatally dangerous operations does not carry the same cost by a huge factor, and those who run computers that do run that level of risk (control systems in hospitals, aircraft guidance, and the nuclear power industry, for examples) are indeed licensed and trained for their work. You can't seriously consider that even something as awful as wiping out someone's life savings stands on the same level as killing them in a truck accident. This is apples-to-oranges comparison.
> And yet companies all across the world will hire someone into a position that required daily, extended user of office type computers at the drop of a hat. At best you can expect "Can you touch type? DO you know Microsoft Word?" Hell, even that's only mostly for secretaries!
If that's all the job requires, what's the motivation for demanding more? You can pay an IT person good money to protect your system from users who don't know more than touch typing, so why make everybody learn stuff they don't need to do their jobs?
> A basic computer competency test should be *compulsory* before anyone is allowed to purchase a computer.
Elitist drivel. You don't have the right to demand any given level of competence from anyone who can afford to own a computer. It's not your business. And no, not even when their system gets infected and attacks yours is it your business. When your lawn gets dandelions from upwind, do you cry out for people to be forced to get a lawn care license or not have one? Get real.
Let's go through your points one at a time:
> 1.) Basic hardware in a computer (stops the old "my cupholder is broken and the tv wont start!" support call when whats actually happened is that they've kicked out a cord at the back)
Basic hardware changes so fast that anyone who isn't actively using the knowledge will quickly have their knowledge turn obsolete. If you think not, then I ask, how many personal computers had CD-ROM drives, or any need for the term "gigabyte", only eight years ago?
> 2.) Basic use of word processing, database, presentation and spreadsheet software (by basic I mean VERY basic. "This is a spreadsheet. It does simple simple calculations, like so")
Why would someone who doesn't use these functions need to learn them? Spreadsheets aren't basic if I never need to use them. Presentation software? What does your short order cook or police officer or teenage gamer need with that? Get out of your boardroom and recognize that you don't have the right to define what's basic for everyone, and that "basic" needs aren't the same for everyone.
> I can't comment on the virus thing because I'm still reeling from the statement "nobody died" in reference to child pornography.
Then stop reeling. The reference "nobody died" referred to a computer crashing because its owner is unfamiliar with its protection, and (as stated by the jury in the case) this guy didn't have a hand in making or distributing the porn, just as if someone had hidden it in his garage for someone else he didn't know to pick up. So, he's not responsible for it.
> There are lots of issues to consider here, firstly the daughter claim... his daughter may have had a vendetta against him because he molested her, or she knew that he was commiting acts against children and just wanted him to get what was coming to him. Who knows...
To be blunt, who cares? If she was molested, she should accuse him of that. If she has reason to believe he's molesting other children, let her present that evidence. Framing him for a crime he didn't commit is never right, even if he committed some other crime.
> also the other thing to consider (and i have some experience in this) when i was getting started in computers and did some stupid things (bruteforcing passwords from my own system), i always ran a copy of BO on my own pc, so i could blame "the evil hackers" if it came down to it. Possibly he was doing the same thing with much more sinister acts.
Sorry, but "possibly" doesn't do in a court of law. Sure it's possible he set up an alibi, but if there's not sufficient evidence that he did it's not the court's right to assume guilt. That's how "beyond a reasonable doubt" works.
> Wonder if you're able to breath in the room when this smoke is there for a couple of hours.
It's not smoke, it's fog. The difference is that it's not going to hang around after it leaves the laminar airflow, because it's opaque vaporized stuff (fog), not particles suspended in air (smoke). There are lots of materials that one can use to create non-persistent fog that isn't water vapor, much like the fog used in nightclubs. It'll just dissipate when it gets out of the laminar airflow.
> Excellent point. If HavenCo seeks to avoid litigation by claiming to be outside of any RIAA jurisdiction, then it follows that HavenCo has no legal recourse to defend itself against the RIAA.
Incorrect, for exactly the same reasonn that the RIAA cannot hack Japanese companies with impunity. Japanese companies do not operate in any area where the RIAA (or the laws backing it) have any jurisdiction, so international trade treaties take over. The same treaties would allow HavenCo to ask NATO or the UN for recourse, and it could legitimately charge the RIAA, and by extension the U.S., with an act of war.
> You're in high school, presumably in the U.S. Which means that every day during the school year, you are forced (whether you wish it or not) to attend a government school, or a private school approved by the government, or be taught at home in ways the government considers appropriate. If you resist this, you and perhaps your parents will be jailed.
Wholly incorrect in this one. The government does not force him to go to high school. Compulsory schooling in the U.S. goes through grade 8. He can drop out of high school if his parent/legal guardian allows him to do so. Nobody gets jailed for this. More telling, if his parent/legal guardian tells him he cannot go to high school, there's very little that government can do to force them to let him go.
> During your stay in this brainwashing center, you will be taught that which the government has decided you will know...If cast out, the rest of society will participate in diminishing the opportunities you have available to you for the rest of your life.
Again, misplaced. All of those things are put in place not by the government, but by communities themselves. No public school in the U.S. has ever successfully implemented a dress code without popular parental support, and more parents complain that schools graduate students who don't succeed than ever complain about high failure and holdback rates. In all of the situations you cite, the school derives its policy and authority from the community, which is comprised of the parents/legal guardians of the student body. It may be true that the students themselves don't have "rights" in the legal sense, but that's solely and completely because of their status as minors. High school students above the age of eighteen do indeed hold all of the rights ascribed to any adult, and one such adult student successfully campaigned to eliminate a dress code at his high school, and voted in the referendum to remove it.
> And you're concerned about "the America you're growing up in" not wholly respecting some other guy's right to free speech? WAKE UP. Your own "rights" have never been respected by the government at any point of your existence to date, and you apparently haven't even noticed.
Still have the Bill of Rights? You have never had the rights therein... yet you're worried about them being chipped away? I submit that your priorites are somewhat misplaced.
Again, not valid. He does indeed have rights, he just can't defend them on his own because he's not recognized by the government as an adult. It's the responsibility of his parent/legal guardian to defend those rights, and this has been done quite often in the past. Besides, it's very bad form to compare his "lack of rights" to the guy convicted in the article, as the commentor will gain all of the rights he discusses when he reaches majority, and at no time does the government hold control of those rights, except as allowed by his parent/legal guardian.
> Make it so the option pays if either (a) the attack actually happens, or (b) it almost happens but is stopped by police, military, etc.
That would be quite simple, if it were simple to define "almost happened" in a rational way. Does a tip that prevents a disaster count if the person involved is arrested before any of the plan is put in motion? Considering the scope this thing promised, how does a government being "almost overthrown" play out? It would be a great idea if you could define these things empirically, but there'd be a large amount of disagreement about what "almost" means. This would introduce uncertainty about the value of the futures, with the already-mentioned chilling effect on investment. And, it still doesn't answer for how increasing awareness for a possible event can alter its course, which again introduces uncertainty that'll chase away investors.
The thing to remember, which is one of the reasons it's such a dumb idea, is that it doesn't just include domestic (to the U.S.) terror events.
> But if they did that, the price of said future would go up, and the authorities would know to be on their guard for it. The system would therefore give a warning when suicide bombing was more likely. Exactly as it's supposed to.
It would only work until investors learned that driving up the price of a future event tends to reduce the value of the future by warning the authorities of its likelihood. That would happen quickly, and then the predictive value of the system would be nil.
> Either way, we win with this "Insider Trading". It's not like there will be less security than before because of this.
You have it backwards. The insiders aren't the investors who are also terrorists, they're the military people who are also controlling the futures market. Suppose a threat gets bought up as more likely, then the military uses that information to prevent the attack. They've just devalued the futures based on their ability to control the event in question. Therefore, investors will see this, and will quickly learn that any futures that rise will intrinsically lose value based on the fact that they'll be more noticeable. This will poison out any predictive power the system may have had to begin with, as the rising value of a future will no longer be a good indicator that the event in question is likely.
This whole idea sounds like an office pool done by someone with bad taste. I hope it dies a well-deserved death in committee.
> It doesn't "say" (or "think") "hummmm...this pilot doesn't know what he is doing" - but it might well make that decision and some systems alledgedly have on occaisions (eg. early Airbus A320 french airshow crash).
I think the most telling demonstration of why people will be loathe to eliminate human pilots is that when the plane makes decisions counter to the pilot, it usually ends up in a wreck. After all, if nothing else the human pilot has a vested interest in preserving his own well-being, where the plane itself does not.
> Couldn't we just boycott the RIAA to death? It's not like their product is a necessity. Listen only to the music you already have. Buy nothing, download nothing, upload nothing. Find something else to do with the time.
As pointed out elsewhere, this isn't the best solution to the problem. If everyone stops buying music at all, it's easy for the RIAA to point to that and say that it's due to illegal file sharing. It's better to buy music like you normally do, but do the boycott correctly and don't buy music produced by RIAA member companies. That sends the very clear message that you're willing to buy music, but you're not willing to buy it from them, and steals all of their "filesharing is reducing music purchases" thunder at the same time.
> If you don't like the fact it's against the law to pirate/steal things you don't own, move to the moon.
This is oversimple. Firstly, there are a number of posts addressing how one could run afoul of this law without knowing it, and there's nothing in the law that would allow such a defense. Second, it implies that if a law is unfair, and I don't like it, my only option is to leave the country. What about complaining loudly that the law is unfair? Thirdly, it implies that there's a general consensus about how fair copyright law is, and the very presence of huge volumes of offenders belies that fact.
So, here's a crazy idea. I'll protest copyright law, as it's written presently, because I think it's been pushed past all sensibility. When the law shows me evidence of doing anything more than protecting the corporate interests of the RIAA, then I might show it a bit more respect. This bill doesn't move me in that direction.
> "They who expend the labor make the rules" is exactly how open source works. I don't see any signs of it failing.
Open-Source is a business model for IP handling. To think that makes it a good analogy for a system of governance is a mistake. In real world practice, communism does not sustain itself as a system of governance. Sorry.
> Not to mention the problems of orbital debris once these guys get themselves into orbit... what happens if the ship blows up 500 miles up? PAVE PAWS et. al is already tracking too much junk as it is...
Please, people! SUBorbital craft, eh? Any debris from explosions will fall to the ground, or water.
Slashdot Mirror
> Well, I'll stick to my point. We can do this now. So, why aren't we? Why are we going to suck oil until we go blue in the face and leave nothing in reserve?
The obvious answer is that it's cheaper than the alternatives. It's not really rational to expect that we'll stop using a resource that's available now, with an already-exisiting distribution infrastructure, for no reason other than that we need to stretch it out over some indeterminate length of time in the future.
> I'm thinking of my kids, but longer term, we're due another ice age real soon now. Failing that, god will drop a rock on us sooner or later. Our descendants are going to have to bootstrap themselves from wood burning stoves to nuclear power. Good luck to them.
What? Why would you think that they'd have to do this? By the time that next ice age rolls around, or the big rock falls, how can you know what we'll use for energy? Besides, why would they progress from wood to nuclear power at all? I can personally think of several options better than that, and I can't predict the future any better than you. You seem to think that we need to move away from fossil fuels right away, and I don't see anything in your argument to explain why. Yes, they're running out, but what's the point to having a huge world reserve of oil by moving away from oil entirely? Doesn't that defeat the use of having the reserves, if nothing you do requires that reserve? As the supply gets harder to provide, the price will rise, and when it rises high enough, we'll move to a different source of energy. Expecting the human race to do anything else is irrationally Utopian.
Virg
> In the event that your accelerator sticks and you can't unstick it. Shift to neutral and let the engine blow.
It's better to step on the brake and turn off the ignition switch. Unless your brakes are in bad shape they'll be able to slow the car significantly even with the accelerator all the way down, and switching off the key will stop the engine dead.
Virg
> And, duh, how do you propose to complete the loop on that one? The only thing that could "prove" someone guilty is software that is checking itself in the first place, which you appear to declare shouldn't be done unless one is guilty to being with. Hoist by your own petard, or caught by your own 22 as it were.
Hoist by your own, sir. The fact that it's difficult to prove someone guilty does not excuse violation of my privacy rights to make their jobs easier. If they have reason to believe I'm stealing, they can press for a BSA-style audit. If they can't get enough proof for that, that's not my problem. Would you allow police to come into your home without a warrant or probable cause to search for illegal drugs just because that would make it easier for the police to catch drug dealers?
> Any piece of software that has a price tag has the absolute right to 'protect' itself against use that is inconsistent with the software license.
Um, this is limited by proper consequence. That protection must not break any laws or perform actions that are considered excessive. Besides, if I buy a piece of software legally, and then it serreptitiously sends my MAC address to its author, you'd have a very hard case proving that it's defending itself from inconsistent use, unless you agree with the logic put forward in the last paragraph.
> This hue and cry over privacy in this regard is so tiresome and is mainly from those trying to keep 'private' the fact that they're too damned cheap to pay for something they want to use.
Here's the relevance problem: the same hue and cry that pirates use is also applicable to falsely accused, legitimate users (and in the cases of some spyware, innocent bystanders). The fact that some of the affected parties are guilty does not excuse the fact that some are not.
Virg
> I don't mind the noise.
Then you're not exactly the target market for this case, are you?
Virg
The third is to get a properly-sized pipe bender from a plumbing supply store. It's not that hard to get the right tool for the job, folks.
Virg
> There's a lot of waggly hand estimation and twocking great big error bars involved, but current estimates are pretty good.
.sig from CaptainSuperBoy, you have to come along and say this. Can I use this?
Just when I get a good
Virg
> Out of all the professions, engineers have the ability to kill the most people in the least amount of time through incompetence.
Incorrect. Pilots, for example, or bus drivers, or demolitions team leaders, or soldiers or firefighters all have higher risk-to-public exposure.
> But, a guy who is an "engineer" and doesn't know hiw head from his ass can design a house/dam/building/bridge/etc. that can kill rather a lot of people.
I do hope you realize that none of the things you describe are designed by a single person in any case. Therefore, a single person's incompetence is very unlikely to cause grave injury. Certainly it's possible, but it happens so seldom that it's front page news. To give you proof, out of thousands of dams built over the last 100 years, how many have failed due to design flaws (as opposed to natural disasters or warfare)? I can only think of one. Therefore, while I agree that you're right about engineering credentials being very important, it's not for the reasons you suggest.
Virg
> The same thing could happen in the real world...that's why the treasury is so closely monitored. Old bills are burned and new bills are minted (printed), the quantities are controlled so as not to cause massive inflation.
Well, bills are destroyed and reprinted because they wear out, not so much for monitoring purposes. And the amount of printed money in circulation is miniscule compared to the amount of money in the economy, so printing more bills does not realistically matter at all.
Virg
Um, only one, Mandy Moore, was an emancipated minor (when they were minors, that is). All of the others were not.
Virg
You can already fine someone for proven financial loss due to damages, if you can prove that they were negligent in allowing the attack. We in the U.S. call those fines "damages", and they're pressed in civil court.
Virg
> However, your statement assumes that people believe kids when they accuse adults.
My statement assumed nothing of the sort. It didn't even address that issue. While I understand, and sympathize completely, your comment is irrelevant to mine. Framing someone for a crime they didn't commit is wrong, in all cases. Fairness and justice for crimes already committed do not figure into the equation. Yes, it sucks, but that solution is not a solution.
Virg
> So, using that as an example and considering how much more common computers are in every day life than cars (know anyone how hasn't driven in the past 12 months? Now, know anyone who hasn't touched a computer in any way shape or form in the same time period?), why don't we have compulsory "basic operation" licsenses for computers?
You need to get out of the area you live in a bit more if you think that computers are more common in everyday use than cars.
> Think about it this way; Truck drivers are forced to undergo rigerous driving training (in the form of logged experience and lessons from qualified staff) before they're allowed to sit for their license and operate the tool they use to make a living. Builders are required to undergo at least two years of apprenticeship plus TAFE (think community college) courses before they can build any type of large structure. People who pilot any form of marine vessel are required to sit a test and get their license before they can command a vessel capable of going over a certain speed/weighing more than a certain tonnage. Hell, even short-order *COOKS* are required to undergoe some form of food preperation and service training before most places will give them a job.
Um, in every single one of the cases you cite, the cost of failure can be fatal. Operating a computer that doesn't run fatally dangerous operations does not carry the same cost by a huge factor, and those who run computers that do run that level of risk (control systems in hospitals, aircraft guidance, and the nuclear power industry, for examples) are indeed licensed and trained for their work. You can't seriously consider that even something as awful as wiping out someone's life savings stands on the same level as killing them in a truck accident. This is apples-to-oranges comparison.
> And yet companies all across the world will hire someone into a position that required daily, extended user of office type computers at the drop of a hat. At best you can expect "Can you touch type? DO you know Microsoft Word?" Hell, even that's only mostly for secretaries!
If that's all the job requires, what's the motivation for demanding more? You can pay an IT person good money to protect your system from users who don't know more than touch typing, so why make everybody learn stuff they don't need to do their jobs?
> A basic computer competency test should be *compulsory* before anyone is allowed to purchase a computer.
Elitist drivel. You don't have the right to demand any given level of competence from anyone who can afford to own a computer. It's not your business. And no, not even when their system gets infected and attacks yours is it your business. When your lawn gets dandelions from upwind, do you cry out for people to be forced to get a lawn care license or not have one? Get real.
Let's go through your points one at a time:
> 1.) Basic hardware in a computer (stops the old "my cupholder is broken and the tv wont start!" support call when whats actually happened is that they've kicked out a cord at the back)
Basic hardware changes so fast that anyone who isn't actively using the knowledge will quickly have their knowledge turn obsolete. If you think not, then I ask, how many personal computers had CD-ROM drives, or any need for the term "gigabyte", only eight years ago?
> 2.) Basic use of word processing, database, presentation and spreadsheet software (by basic I mean VERY basic. "This is a spreadsheet. It does simple simple calculations, like so")
Why would someone who doesn't use these functions need to learn them? Spreadsheets aren't basic if I never need to use them. Presentation software? What does your short order cook or police officer or teenage gamer need with that? Get out of your boardroom and recognize that you don't have the right to define what's basic for everyone, and that "basic" needs aren't the same for everyone.
> I can't comment on the virus thing because I'm still reeling from the statement "nobody died" in reference to child pornography.
Then stop reeling. The reference "nobody died" referred to a computer crashing because its owner is unfamiliar with its protection, and (as stated by the jury in the case) this guy didn't have a hand in making or distributing the porn, just as if someone had hidden it in his garage for someone else he didn't know to pick up. So, he's not responsible for it.
Virg
> There are lots of issues to consider here, firstly the daughter claim... his daughter may have had a vendetta against him because he molested her, or she knew that he was commiting acts against children and just wanted him to get what was coming to him. Who knows...
To be blunt, who cares? If she was molested, she should accuse him of that. If she has reason to believe he's molesting other children, let her present that evidence. Framing him for a crime he didn't commit is never right, even if he committed some other crime.
> also the other thing to consider (and i have some experience in this) when i was getting started in computers and did some stupid things (bruteforcing passwords from my own system), i always ran a copy of BO on my own pc, so i could blame "the evil hackers" if it came down to it. Possibly he was doing the same thing with much more sinister acts.
Sorry, but "possibly" doesn't do in a court of law. Sure it's possible he set up an alibi, but if there's not sufficient evidence that he did it's not the court's right to assume guilt. That's how "beyond a reasonable doubt" works.
Virg
> Wonder if you're able to breath in the room when this smoke is there for a couple of hours.
It's not smoke, it's fog. The difference is that it's not going to hang around after it leaves the laminar airflow, because it's opaque vaporized stuff (fog), not particles suspended in air (smoke). There are lots of materials that one can use to create non-persistent fog that isn't water vapor, much like the fog used in nightclubs. It'll just dissipate when it gets out of the laminar airflow.
Virg
> Excellent point. If HavenCo seeks to avoid litigation by claiming to be outside of any RIAA jurisdiction, then it follows that HavenCo has no legal recourse to defend itself against the RIAA.
Incorrect, for exactly the same reasonn that the RIAA cannot hack Japanese companies with impunity. Japanese companies do not operate in any area where the RIAA (or the laws backing it) have any jurisdiction, so international trade treaties take over. The same treaties would allow HavenCo to ask NATO or the UN for recourse, and it could legitimately charge the RIAA, and by extension the U.S., with an act of war.
Virg
> You're in high school, presumably in the U.S. Which means that every day during the school year, you are forced (whether you wish it or not) to attend a government school, or a private school approved by the government, or be taught at home in ways the government considers appropriate. If you resist this, you and perhaps your parents will be jailed.
Wholly incorrect in this one. The government does not force him to go to high school. Compulsory schooling in the U.S. goes through grade 8. He can drop out of high school if his parent/legal guardian allows him to do so. Nobody gets jailed for this. More telling, if his parent/legal guardian tells him he cannot go to high school, there's very little that government can do to force them to let him go.
> During your stay in this brainwashing center, you will be taught that which the government has decided you will know...If cast out, the rest of society will participate in diminishing the opportunities you have available to you for the rest of your life.
Again, misplaced. All of those things are put in place not by the government, but by communities themselves. No public school in the U.S. has ever successfully implemented a dress code without popular parental support, and more parents complain that schools graduate students who don't succeed than ever complain about high failure and holdback rates. In all of the situations you cite, the school derives its policy and authority from the community, which is comprised of the parents/legal guardians of the student body. It may be true that the students themselves don't have "rights" in the legal sense, but that's solely and completely because of their status as minors. High school students above the age of eighteen do indeed hold all of the rights ascribed to any adult, and one such adult student successfully campaigned to eliminate a dress code at his high school, and voted in the referendum to remove it.
> And you're concerned about "the America you're growing up in" not wholly respecting some other guy's right to free speech? WAKE UP. Your own "rights" have never been respected by the government at any point of your existence to date, and you apparently haven't even noticed.
Still have the Bill of Rights? You have never had the rights therein... yet you're worried about them being chipped away? I submit that your priorites are somewhat misplaced.
Again, not valid. He does indeed have rights, he just can't defend them on his own because he's not recognized by the government as an adult. It's the responsibility of his parent/legal guardian to defend those rights, and this has been done quite often in the past. Besides, it's very bad form to compare his "lack of rights" to the guy convicted in the article, as the commentor will gain all of the rights he discusses when he reaches majority, and at no time does the government hold control of those rights, except as allowed by his parent/legal guardian.
Virg
> Make it so the option pays if either (a) the attack actually happens, or (b) it almost happens but is stopped by police, military, etc.
That would be quite simple, if it were simple to define "almost happened" in a rational way. Does a tip that prevents a disaster count if the person involved is arrested before any of the plan is put in motion? Considering the scope this thing promised, how does a government being "almost overthrown" play out? It would be a great idea if you could define these things empirically, but there'd be a large amount of disagreement about what "almost" means. This would introduce uncertainty about the value of the futures, with the already-mentioned chilling effect on investment. And, it still doesn't answer for how increasing awareness for a possible event can alter its course, which again introduces uncertainty that'll chase away investors.
The thing to remember, which is one of the reasons it's such a dumb idea, is that it doesn't just include domestic (to the U.S.) terror events.
Virg
> But if they did that, the price of said future would go up, and the authorities would know to be on their guard for it. The system would therefore give a warning when suicide bombing was more likely. Exactly as it's supposed to.
It would only work until investors learned that driving up the price of a future event tends to reduce the value of the future by warning the authorities of its likelihood. That would happen quickly, and then the predictive value of the system would be nil.
Virg
> Either way, we win with this "Insider Trading". It's not like there will be less security than before because of this.
You have it backwards. The insiders aren't the investors who are also terrorists, they're the military people who are also controlling the futures market. Suppose a threat gets bought up as more likely, then the military uses that information to prevent the attack. They've just devalued the futures based on their ability to control the event in question. Therefore, investors will see this, and will quickly learn that any futures that rise will intrinsically lose value based on the fact that they'll be more noticeable. This will poison out any predictive power the system may have had to begin with, as the rising value of a future will no longer be a good indicator that the event in question is likely.
This whole idea sounds like an office pool done by someone with bad taste. I hope it dies a well-deserved death in committee.
Virg
> It doesn't "say" (or "think") "hummmm...this pilot doesn't know what he is doing" - but it might well make that decision and some systems alledgedly have on occaisions (eg. early Airbus A320 french airshow crash).
I think the most telling demonstration of why people will be loathe to eliminate human pilots is that when the plane makes decisions counter to the pilot, it usually ends up in a wreck. After all, if nothing else the human pilot has a vested interest in preserving his own well-being, where the plane itself does not.
Virg
> Couldn't we just boycott the RIAA to death? It's not like their product is a necessity. Listen only to the music you already have. Buy nothing, download nothing, upload nothing. Find something else to do with the time.
As pointed out elsewhere, this isn't the best solution to the problem. If everyone stops buying music at all, it's easy for the RIAA to point to that and say that it's due to illegal file sharing. It's better to buy music like you normally do, but do the boycott correctly and don't buy music produced by RIAA member companies. That sends the very clear message that you're willing to buy music, but you're not willing to buy it from them, and steals all of their "filesharing is reducing music purchases" thunder at the same time.
Virg
I'll take up with only one point:
> If you don't like the fact it's against the law to pirate/steal things you don't own, move to the moon.
This is oversimple. Firstly, there are a number of posts addressing how one could run afoul of this law without knowing it, and there's nothing in the law that would allow such a defense. Second, it implies that if a law is unfair, and I don't like it, my only option is to leave the country. What about complaining loudly that the law is unfair? Thirdly, it implies that there's a general consensus about how fair copyright law is, and the very presence of huge volumes of offenders belies that fact.
So, here's a crazy idea. I'll protest copyright law, as it's written presently, because I think it's been pushed past all sensibility. When the law shows me evidence of doing anything more than protecting the corporate interests of the RIAA, then I might show it a bit more respect. This bill doesn't move me in that direction.
Virg
> "They who expend the labor make the rules" is exactly how open source works. I don't see any signs of it failing.
Open-Source is a business model for IP handling. To think that makes it a good analogy for a system of governance is a mistake. In real world practice, communism does not sustain itself as a system of governance. Sorry.
Virg
> Not to mention the problems of orbital debris once these guys get themselves into orbit... what happens if the ship blows up 500 miles up? PAVE PAWS et. al is already tracking too much junk as it is...
Please, people! SUBorbital craft, eh? Any debris from explosions will fall to the ground, or water.
Carry on.
Virg