"Our nanoparticle-coated electrodes make electrolysers efficient enough to provide hydrogen on demand from a tank of distilled water in your car."
If he mis-read the article, then I did as well. The statement above appears to indicate that they are suggesting you create hydrogen in your car while you're driving. To do this, you'll need electricity, and you'll end up losing out, because of the laws of thermodynamics. Your interpretation is slightly different, more reasonable, and not at all indicated by the article text. I believe you are describing a situation where you go home, plug your car in, and overnight it turns distilled water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Okay, let's start off with the fact that I do think that some form of copyright is required in order to promote the creation of new materials in today's society. I'm not going to get into discussions about what that should be, but I do agree that the creator of content must have some way to make a living from practicing their art, if we deem that art to be of cultural value. Without it, content creators might not be able to create new works, instead having to work normal 9-5 jobs to support themselves.
I offered up the pumpkin analogy against your argument that people that infringe copyrights are stealing:
Every time you pirate a CD, you are undermining the copyright. You have created another source from which copyrighted works can come, which eats into the value of the copyright itself. You are gaining the value of the copyrighted work, yet there is no equivalent exchange. The copyright holder ends up with a slightly depreciated version of what he owned before you pirated the work. You are stealing value from the copyright holder for your own gratification.
I believe the pumpkin analogy works against this argument in isolation. I have created another source from which the pumpkins can come, and because I've broken the monopoly, I've undermined the value of the original pumpkin grower's wares. Now, to get to work on this statement:
No. The pumpkin seller is not charging for the abstract design of a pumpkin; he's selling you the work he did in order to plant, grow, and pick those pumpkins. When you grow your own pumpkins, you will have to do the same work as the seller, and you won't have to rely on the seller to do that work. You have created your own stable and complete competitor to the original pumpkin seller.
Lets say this pumpkin grower has spent 15 years breeding pumpkins to be big, and round, and bright orange, and generally perfect for jack-o-lanterns. I've taken those seeds from him to grow other pumpkins. When I grow my own pumpkins, I'm not going to bother weeding, or picking them, or washing off the dirt. The people who take my pumpkins are going to have to do that. Similarly, when I share a set of music files on a P2P network, I'm not going to be burning them to a CD, including fancy cover art, and giving it to the people that want it in a nicely shrink-wrapped jewel case.
What do the record companies charge money for? Is it for the physical CD? Or is it for a license to listen to the music on the CD? If the former, then there should be no problem with making copies. If the latter, then they should be completely willing to replace broken CDs at a reasonable replacement cost. Have you ever tried to get a broken or scratched CD replaced?
Oh, I agree completely, that the market for pumpkins cannot be used directly as an analogy for the market for copyrighted materials. My example was simply to pick apart this statement by the OP:
Every time you pirate a CD, you are undermining the copyright. You have created another source from which copyrighted works can come, which eats into the value of the copyright itself. You are gaining the value of the copyrighted work, yet there is no equivalent exchange. The copyright holder ends up with a slightly depreciated version of what he owned before you pirated the work. You are stealing value from the copyright holder for your own gratification.
Basically, the OP is stating that copyrights are awesome because they provide monopolies on a certain product. I've tried to point out that it is not a good thing to protect monopolies just for the sake of protecting the profits of the monopolist, and, in fact, most of the time protecting the monopolist hurts the end consumer. There must be a greater gain in protecting the monopolist than the loss to the end consumer. (and yes, in copyrights, that gain is supposed to be the encouragement to develop new works, but the OP did not argue that)
Let's say that you are the only person in town that grows pumpkins. Come Hallowe'en time, children need pumpkins in order to carve Jack'o'Lanterns. Since you're the only person supplying those pumpkins, you can charge $30 each for them if you want.
Now, imagine that I came along, and last year I bought one of your pumpkins for your outrageous $30 price tag. However, instead of just making a Jack'o'Lantern out of it, I opened it up, took out the seeds, and planted them in my own garden. Now, I've got a lot of pumpkins to sell. And maybe I'm very charitable. Let's say that I planted the pumpkins in a field that I otherwise wasn't using. And I just left them to grow however they wanted, with no watering and no fertilizer (because, let's face it, pumpkins grow like crazy). Since it's cost me nothing but a bit of time to grow these pumpkins, I have no issue with giving them away for free. Especially if it's the responsibility of the people who want the pumpkins to find one that's nice and big and round, to cut it free from the vine, and to carry it to their car.
Look at what I have done. I have just created another avenue for the supply of pumpkins, which undermines the value of the pumpkins that you're growing. Is what I've done something that you would consider theft?
For those of you who scratched your head at the summary and title:
The car _is_ hydrogen powered, sorta. However, it generates the hydrogen on-board from a hydrocarbon fuel. The hydrogen is then used to power the vehicle, and the leftover carbon remains in the car, and is taken back to a central location for disposal.
Apparently, they are able to create H2 + liquid CO2 using a special CO2/H2 Active Membrane Piston (CHAMP) reactor. The liquid CO2 is never released to the atmosphere.
Further pedantic correction: The degree (from an accredited institution) is not required if you're willing to write many many MANY equivalency tests. Basically, write the final exam for every course in 4 years of University, and you don't need to have a degree to become a P.Eng.
And the ring is just for tapping against beer bottles. Everyone knows that:)
And the Engineer who stamped the plans before construction began is now personally liable for all the damage caused. That is the difference (in Ontario) between someone who is an Engineer, and someone who just calls themselves one (illegally). That person has probably been stripped of their certification, and can never work as an Engineer again. There are responsibilities associated with being a Professional Engineer, and penalties should those responsibilities not be met.
What's going to happen if I do tell her? Is she going to create some kind of intelligent ape-bear hybrid with poisonous claws and send it to tear you to pieces?
Pray tell, how does this proposed solution relieve congestion? Because this article is not about pollution, it's about congestion. Too many cars and not enough roads.
Hrm. A 50% reduction in gun deaths. That seems pretty awesome to me. In 2004, 29,569 people were killed in the US by guns. Don't you think it would be nice to save 15,000 lives? I sure do.
And the seatbelt-less driver who is ejected from their vehicle in a head-on collision, and goes through the windshield of the other car to break that driver's neck? What of them?
And the driver who is thrown out of their seat from a minor accident, and unable to control their vehicle as it careens into oncoming traffic? What of them?
Seatbelt laws do not only protect the wearer of the seatbelt.
They've already started. Big, scary commercials about how your TV is going to stop working in 2009. There's a 1-800 number to call, as well as websites listed on the commercials. In fact, I think I saw one as I was watching The Price is Right the other day. And let me tell you, Drew Carey is no Bob Barker.
It's currently only the type Ia supernovas that are hypothesized to be triggered by aggregation of stellar material up to the Chandrasekhar limit. Types Ib, Ic, and II are all currently thought to be due to gravitational collapse. And even if this was a type Ia supernova, to quote the article:
Spectral observations did show, however, that the burst, called GRB 070125, had exploded within a small pocket of dense gas.
Just because it's not part of a galaxy, doesn't mean it's completely empty.
in being one of the "good" help desk callers. I've worked one before. It wasn't fun. And I try to help them out with all the information that I can give them. So I'm booting my machine, and I get an error message? Copy the text of the error message into the help desk ticket. Try rebooting - does it recur? Let them know that on the ticket as well.
Thanks to my (apparent) usefulness, I've been given access to some of the less dangerous tools that they run to resolve common problems (like, for instance, Lotus Notes closing, but not closing its database connection).
It's inkjet printer heads and inkjet printer ink. They've got a platform that they spread plaster powder on. When each layer is printed with the ink, it soaks into the plaster powder, which then hardens.
It has been brought to my attention that the Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage are planning on introducing a bill to amend the Copyright Act (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01142e.html). Several of their proposed changes are distasteful to me.
Their first bullet point -
In conformity with the WCT, the existing exclusive communication right of authors would be clarified to include the making available right. In conformity with the WPPT, sound recording makers and performers would be provided the right to control the making available of their material on the Internet.
Is this to mean that public libraries must obtain the rightsholder's permission prior to putting a novel on their shelves? Will they no longer be able to carry CD's and DVD's unless the media companies that own the copyrights give their explicit permission? Access to information is very important in this day and age. Public libraries serve a vital role in allow those who otherwise do not have the financial means to learn about the world around them. This service cannot be threatened in any way by any changes to the Copyright Act.
Also, I'd like to know what the reason for introducing this amendment is. It directly contradicts Judge Konrad von Finckenstein's rejection of the CRIA's motion for the court to authorize the identification of 29 alleged file swappers, on March 31 2004, wherein he noted that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn't constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
Finally, there's the whole issue of computer security to take into account. I'm sure you've heard tales of people that have virus infected computers. These computers can then be used to host file sharing programs. Should this activitiy be noticed by the rightsholders, the owner of the computer can be taken to court, and, in a civil trial, the burden of proof then falls upon that hapless individual, who must prove that they were not the person to activate the file sharing program. Let me ask you, if someone hacked your home computer, and from there, started uploading the latest movies to file sharing networks, would you have the technical expertise to prove your innocence? And even if you did, how serious would the financial burden of defending yourself be? Now imagine that spread across thousands of Canadians, many of whom couldn't even afford the time away from work, let alone the legal fees.
Moving on to their second proposed amendment:
In conformity with the WCT and WPPT, the circumvention, for infringing purposes, of technological measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would itself constitute an infringement of copyright. Copyright would also be infringed by persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention or who, without authorization, distribute copyright material from which TPMs have been removed. It would not be legal to circumvent, without authorization, a TPM applied to a sound recording, notwithstanding the exception for private copying.
With this single statement, it will be possible for the distributors of any digital file, be it a CD full of music, a DVD of a movie, or anything else you can dream of, to effectively ignore our current copyright exceptions of parody, personal use, educational use, archiving, and criticism. It is trivial to include some form of copy protection on a CD. With that done, it would become a criminal act to move a song that you've paid for from a CD onto an MP3 player. It would become a criminal act to show clips of a movie when reviewing it. This is more insidious than it first seems (though on the surface, it is insidious enough). With the ability to prevent people from distributing reviews of their work, media conglomerates can control their reviews. We would effectively never see another negative review of any work. I do not want to see that freedom removed from the Canadian populace.
Until the actual bill is posted somewhere where it can be read, there is no point in doing anything. Hell, I haven't even seen a number that's been assigned to this bill.
My MP has responded in a timely manner to even emails that I've sent him about my opposition to specific pieces of legislation. I will wait until it is actually tabled before I start doing anything. Right now, it's just FUD. "A possible bill that may be proposed might have horrible consequences for the state of copyright in Canada."
The way it works in NA, IIRC, is that if 911 is called and the operator doesn't hear anyone, they have to assume the worst and send fire, police and ambulance to the address of the phone (if it's a land line). Not sure how it works for cell phones.
As noted in other comments on this thread, that's not how 50/50 draws work. The 50/50 actually refers to how much of the takings are paid out, and how much are kept. In a 50/50 draw, 50% of the total sales is given to the draw winner, and the other 50% is kept by the person holding the draw. If 100 people each buy one ticket in a 50/50 draw for $1 each, each person have a 1/100 chance of winning $50, and the person organizing the draw walks away with the other $50.
So, buying more tickets in a 50/50 draw does increase your odds of winning, proportional to your investment:
1/100 * $50.00 = $0.50 expected payout for $1 investment 2/101 * $50.50 = $1.00 expected payout for $2 investment 3/102 * $51.00 = $1.50 expected payout for 43 investment etc. etc. etc.
Most of the time, you are better off (environmentally) purchasing and running a lower-efficiency used car, if you assume the car would have been scrapped had you not purchased it. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is not insignificant. Perhaps once the energy used in automobile manufacture becomes more green, this will change, but for now, used cars are an environmentally conscious choice.
For the same reason, it's better to wait until your appliances wear out before replacing them with more energy-efficient ones. The longer you can amortize the manufacturing costs over, the better it is.
My company is currently transitioning from MSOffice to OpenOffice. That is, every new computer provided by the IT department has OO installed, and not MSO. I applaud their efforts, and save all of my working copies in.odf format. If someone needs to look at one of my docs, or I'm ready to release a doc, I use the built-in (best feature ever) pdf exporter. Wanna collaborate on a document? Tell IT to install OO for you.
Unfortunately, they have not installed OO on all the computers in the office. Even worse, some people complained that they "had to learn all the new shortcuts," and demanded to have MSO re-installed, then they personally uninstalled OO.
We apparently have to keep MSO around for some of our legacy Excel files that make extensive use of pivot tables, but I've never used one of those, so I'm quite happy with OpenOffice and their file format.
Slashdot Mirror
If he mis-read the article, then I did as well. The statement above appears to indicate that they are suggesting you create hydrogen in your car while you're driving. To do this, you'll need electricity, and you'll end up losing out, because of the laws of thermodynamics. Your interpretation is slightly different, more reasonable, and not at all indicated by the article text. I believe you are describing a situation where you go home, plug your car in, and overnight it turns distilled water into hydrogen and oxygen.
I offered up the pumpkin analogy against your argument that people that infringe copyrights are stealing:
I believe the pumpkin analogy works against this argument in isolation. I have created another source from which the pumpkins can come, and because I've broken the monopoly, I've undermined the value of the original pumpkin grower's wares.
Now, to get to work on this statement:
Lets say this pumpkin grower has spent 15 years breeding pumpkins to be big, and round, and bright orange, and generally perfect for jack-o-lanterns. I've taken those seeds from him to grow other pumpkins. When I grow my own pumpkins, I'm not going to bother weeding, or picking them, or washing off the dirt. The people who take my pumpkins are going to have to do that. Similarly, when I share a set of music files on a P2P network, I'm not going to be burning them to a CD, including fancy cover art, and giving it to the people that want it in a nicely shrink-wrapped jewel case.
What do the record companies charge money for? Is it for the physical CD? Or is it for a license to listen to the music on the CD? If the former, then there should be no problem with making copies. If the latter, then they should be completely willing to replace broken CDs at a reasonable replacement cost. Have you ever tried to get a broken or scratched CD replaced?
Basically, the OP is stating that copyrights are awesome because they provide monopolies on a certain product. I've tried to point out that it is not a good thing to protect monopolies just for the sake of protecting the profits of the monopolist, and, in fact, most of the time protecting the monopolist hurts the end consumer. There must be a greater gain in protecting the monopolist than the loss to the end consumer. (and yes, in copyrights, that gain is supposed to be the encouragement to develop new works, but the OP did not argue that)
Argument by analogy.
Let's say that you are the only person in town that grows pumpkins. Come Hallowe'en time, children need pumpkins in order to carve Jack'o'Lanterns. Since you're the only person supplying those pumpkins, you can charge $30 each for them if you want.
Now, imagine that I came along, and last year I bought one of your pumpkins for your outrageous $30 price tag. However, instead of just making a Jack'o'Lantern out of it, I opened it up, took out the seeds, and planted them in my own garden. Now, I've got a lot of pumpkins to sell. And maybe I'm very charitable. Let's say that I planted the pumpkins in a field that I otherwise wasn't using. And I just left them to grow however they wanted, with no watering and no fertilizer (because, let's face it, pumpkins grow like crazy). Since it's cost me nothing but a bit of time to grow these pumpkins, I have no issue with giving them away for free. Especially if it's the responsibility of the people who want the pumpkins to find one that's nice and big and round, to cut it free from the vine, and to carry it to their car.
Look at what I have done. I have just created another avenue for the supply of pumpkins, which undermines the value of the pumpkins that you're growing. Is what I've done something that you would consider theft?
For those of you who scratched your head at the summary and title:
The car _is_ hydrogen powered, sorta. However, it generates the hydrogen on-board from a hydrocarbon fuel. The hydrogen is then used to power the vehicle, and the leftover carbon remains in the car, and is taken back to a central location for disposal.
Apparently, they are able to create H2 + liquid CO2 using a special CO2/H2 Active Membrane Piston (CHAMP) reactor. The liquid CO2 is never released to the atmosphere.
Further pedantic correction: The degree (from an accredited institution) is not required if you're willing to write many many MANY equivalency tests. Basically, write the final exam for every course in 4 years of University, and you don't need to have a degree to become a P.Eng.
:)
And the ring is just for tapping against beer bottles. Everyone knows that
And the Engineer who stamped the plans before construction began is now personally liable for all the damage caused. That is the difference (in Ontario) between someone who is an Engineer, and someone who just calls themselves one (illegally). That person has probably been stripped of their certification, and can never work as an Engineer again. There are responsibilities associated with being a Professional Engineer, and penalties should those responsibilities not be met.
What's going to happen if I do tell her? Is she going to create some kind of intelligent ape-bear hybrid with poisonous claws and send it to tear you to pieces?
Cool.
Pray tell, how does this proposed solution relieve congestion? Because this article is not about pollution, it's about congestion. Too many cars and not enough roads.
Hrm. A 50% reduction in gun deaths. That seems pretty awesome to me. In 2004, 29,569 people were killed in the US by guns. Don't you think it would be nice to save 15,000 lives? I sure do.
And the seatbelt-less driver who is ejected from their vehicle in a head-on collision, and goes through the windshield of the other car to break that driver's neck? What of them?
And the driver who is thrown out of their seat from a minor accident, and unable to control their vehicle as it careens into oncoming traffic? What of them?
Seatbelt laws do not only protect the wearer of the seatbelt.
Eat a new species of animal.
So far I'm 3/3 on it (boar, elk, alligator).
They've already started. Big, scary commercials about how your TV is going to stop working in 2009. There's a 1-800 number to call, as well as websites listed on the commercials. In fact, I think I saw one as I was watching The Price is Right the other day. And let me tell you, Drew Carey is no Bob Barker.
in being one of the "good" help desk callers. I've worked one before. It wasn't fun. And I try to help them out with all the information that I can give them. So I'm booting my machine, and I get an error message? Copy the text of the error message into the help desk ticket. Try rebooting - does it recur? Let them know that on the ticket as well.
Thanks to my (apparent) usefulness, I've been given access to some of the less dangerous tools that they run to resolve common problems (like, for instance, Lotus Notes closing, but not closing its database connection).
RTFSummary.
It's inkjet printer heads and inkjet printer ink. They've got a platform that they spread plaster powder on. When each layer is printed with the ink, it soaks into the plaster powder, which then hardens.
Shouldn't we at least jersey him, and give him a few shots to the head? :)
Mister $Member_of_Parliament,
It has been brought to my attention that the Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage are planning on introducing a bill to amend the Copyright Act (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01142e.html). Several of their proposed changes are distasteful to me.
Their first bullet point -
In conformity with the WCT, the existing exclusive communication right of authors would be clarified to include the making available right. In conformity with the WPPT, sound recording makers and performers would be provided the right to control the making available of their material on the Internet.
Is this to mean that public libraries must obtain the rightsholder's permission prior to putting a novel on their shelves? Will they no longer be able to carry CD's and DVD's unless the media companies that own the copyrights give their explicit permission? Access to information is very important in this day and age. Public libraries serve a vital role in allow those who otherwise do not have the financial means to learn about the world around them. This service cannot be threatened in any way by any changes to the Copyright Act.
Also, I'd like to know what the reason for introducing this amendment is. It directly contradicts Judge Konrad von Finckenstein's rejection of the CRIA's motion for the court to authorize the identification of 29 alleged file swappers, on March 31 2004, wherein he noted that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn't constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
Finally, there's the whole issue of computer security to take into account. I'm sure you've heard tales of people that have virus infected computers. These computers can then be used to host file sharing programs. Should this activitiy be noticed by the rightsholders, the owner of the computer can be taken to court, and, in a civil trial, the burden of proof then falls upon that hapless individual, who must prove that they were not the person to activate the file sharing program. Let me ask you, if someone hacked your home computer, and from there, started uploading the latest movies to file sharing networks, would you have the technical expertise to prove your innocence? And even if you did, how serious would the financial burden of defending yourself be? Now imagine that spread across thousands of Canadians, many of whom couldn't even afford the time away from work, let alone the legal fees.
Moving on to their second proposed amendment:
In conformity with the WCT and WPPT, the circumvention, for infringing purposes, of technological measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would itself constitute an infringement of copyright. Copyright would also be infringed by persons who, for infringing purposes, enable or facilitate circumvention or who, without authorization, distribute copyright material from which TPMs have been removed. It would not be legal to circumvent, without authorization, a TPM applied to a sound recording, notwithstanding the exception for private copying.
With this single statement, it will be possible for the distributors of any digital file, be it a CD full of music, a DVD of a movie, or anything else you can dream of, to effectively ignore our current copyright exceptions of parody, personal use, educational use, archiving, and criticism. It is trivial to include some form of copy protection on a CD. With that done, it would become a criminal act to move a song that you've paid for from a CD onto an MP3 player. It would become a criminal act to show clips of a movie when reviewing it. This is more insidious than it first seems (though on the surface, it is insidious enough). With the ability to prevent people from distributing reviews of their work, media conglomerates can control their reviews. We would effectively never see another negative review of any work. I do not want to see that freedom removed from the Canadian populace.
Mov
Thank you. I'm writing a letter to my MP right now.
Until the actual bill is posted somewhere where it can be read, there is no point in doing anything. Hell, I haven't even seen a number that's been assigned to this bill.
My MP has responded in a timely manner to even emails that I've sent him about my opposition to specific pieces of legislation. I will wait until it is actually tabled before I start doing anything. Right now, it's just FUD. "A possible bill that may be proposed might have horrible consequences for the state of copyright in Canada."
The way it works in NA, IIRC, is that if 911 is called and the operator doesn't hear anyone, they have to assume the worst and send fire, police and ambulance to the address of the phone (if it's a land line). Not sure how it works for cell phones.
As noted in other comments on this thread, that's not how 50/50 draws work. The 50/50 actually refers to how much of the takings are paid out, and how much are kept. In a 50/50 draw, 50% of the total sales is given to the draw winner, and the other 50% is kept by the person holding the draw. If 100 people each buy one ticket in a 50/50 draw for $1 each, each person have a 1/100 chance of winning $50, and the person organizing the draw walks away with the other $50.
So, buying more tickets in a 50/50 draw does increase your odds of winning, proportional to your investment:
1/100 * $50.00 = $0.50 expected payout for $1 investment
2/101 * $50.50 = $1.00 expected payout for $2 investment
3/102 * $51.00 = $1.50 expected payout for 43 investment
etc. etc. etc.
Most of the time, you are better off (environmentally) purchasing and running a lower-efficiency used car, if you assume the car would have been scrapped had you not purchased it. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is not insignificant. Perhaps once the energy used in automobile manufacture becomes more green, this will change, but for now, used cars are an environmentally conscious choice.
For the same reason, it's better to wait until your appliances wear out before replacing them with more energy-efficient ones. The longer you can amortize the manufacturing costs over, the better it is.
Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"?
Yes.
My company is currently transitioning from MSOffice to OpenOffice. That is, every new computer provided by the IT department has OO installed, and not MSO. I applaud their efforts, and save all of my working copies in .odf format. If someone needs to look at one of my docs, or I'm ready to release a doc, I use the built-in (best feature ever) pdf exporter. Wanna collaborate on a document? Tell IT to install OO for you.
Unfortunately, they have not installed OO on all the computers in the office. Even worse, some people complained that they "had to learn all the new shortcuts," and demanded to have MSO re-installed, then they personally uninstalled OO.
We apparently have to keep MSO around for some of our legacy Excel files that make extensive use of pivot tables, but I've never used one of those, so I'm quite happy with OpenOffice and their file format.