You do not want to copyright software. For one thing you're looking at VERY long rights that were designed for protecting artists now applying to programmers. That's not a legitimate application of the law.
Now if you want a different type of patient JUST for software then that's fine. But I really don't see the point.
Let them patient software. But don't let them patient concepts. If someone invents a cotton gin for example and patients it then someone else should be able to make another machine that does the same thing in a different way without infringing on patient. At least, that's my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong. But there has to be a way to thread the needle and make everyone happy except for the patient trolls.
Nearly all the innovative content being produced is produced with full legal protections.
Only a very very small and rather insignificant minority is produced under open source. That should tell you something. If the OpenSource method were more profitable then more people would do it.
Copyright should last at least as long as the life time of the person that made it.
If I wrote something I want copyright on it for my life time. Furthermore, there is an argument for having the term last no less then 70 or so years.
That is for copyright which would apply to creative works such as music, art, books, etc.
Patients shouldn't last more then 14 years and apply to inventions.
The law needs to be clear about what is a creative work and what is an invention. Obviously an invention is an act of creation but it's clearly different from a work of art as well.
The Windows OS for example would be something you could patient both in it's entirity and in parts. If there were a poem displayed at the very beginning of the OS's operation then you could copyright that poem but anyone could avoid copyright issues by simply removing the poem.
Then you have trademark which can be maintained in perpetuity so long as it's actively used by the company.
Anyway, in so far as innovation is concerned copyright isn't relevant. That's a patient issue since copyrights don't apply to inventions. In so far as creative works are concerned, I see no reason why copyrights restrict anyone else from creating things. Copyrights don't disallow making similar works. They merely prevent the use of that specific work. People are arguing that these rules are getting in the way of creation. Only patient law would be able to do that and patient law doesn't extend for that many years.
Is patient law being exploited? Yes. But the reforms are pretty obvious and not very radical.
I'm afraid it is stealing... and your system of doing nothing is analogous to replacing the police with nothing.
Your solution is anarchy and it's not acceptable. Please offer a reasonable reform solution or your comments are just a cry for easy looting.
We AGREE that reform is required. Understand patients are NOT going away. Copyright is NOT going away. It will NOT happen. You might as well demand free ice cream and pony rides. It will not happen. No.
Reform is what you can get. And if you ACTUALLY had some reform ideas it would suggest that you had ACTUALLY thought about the issue or ACTUALLY knew anything.
But you haven't which suggests instead that you're proposing radical policy shifts that govern billion dollar industries all over the world... completely pulled out of your own ass without any deep consideration, planning, or knowledge whatsoever.
I don't claim to be an expert here... Truly. Lots of people know a lot more about this stuff then me. But I at least know enough to know you don't go ripping organs out of a complex system without knowing exactly what that organ does and how it's connected to everything else.
Please, I don't mean to get into a flame war with you. But this is a very serious issue and it's deserves better.
Your idea of getting viewers to fund show development is a nice idea and I'd love to see it in practice.
Until I see it work though I'm a little dubious as to whether it can work.
Is that fair? Imagine the first guy making an airplane or a submarine or a rocket ship or a telephone. Did people just believe they were going to succeed? Most were skeptical.
But I'm open to what you've got. So when I see it working I'll believe it. Till then, I'm going to remain dubious.
Look at the history of innovation and discovery in western civilization.
Okay now look up when copyrights started getting issued.
Connect the dots please. Innovation might not stop but it would crash. Nothing ever really stops. But it could well be the difference between the speed of a snail and the speed of a jet plane. I mean... sure... the snail might not stop but you'll be lucky to make it out of the neighborhood where as the jet can take you to the other side of the world fairly efficiently.
Speed matters.
As to the copyright patient issue... Obviously they shouldn't enjoy both protections. That's silly. I'm not defending every stupid policy and law passed by pin head politicians and sleazy interest groups. I'm simply pointing out that the bones of the system are essential. If you want to argue about some of the flesh then that's fine. Lets talk about where some things might be reformed. But if when you start ripping the ribs out wholesale... I'm going to assume I'm dealing with a crazy person. We need something there. Obviously what we have needs to be reformed. So lets reform it. Talking about removing it entirely is counter productive. We're not doing that. Stop asking for things we're not going to do... it's silly.
If you ACTUALLY think that would work as a functional business model then consult your drug dealer... your stash was spiked... probably with a neuro toxin... or a very powerful hallucinogen.
As to my qualifications as a record executive... They made the mistake of ignoring the internet and believing through lawyers and meaningless threats they could keep pushing little plastic discs no one wants.
Apple then came along and ate their lunch... by selling copyrighted music.
The issue with the record execs has nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with not updating their business model.
I can only assume your idea of what the execs should do is just give everything away... and then pay their rent with what? Oh I know... your good will... because that's all they'd have. Which is actually entirely worthless.
Look... if you think you're going to change the law to make it suddenly legal to rip people off... then dream on.
You don't seem at all interested in reforming the system or coming up with a better system. You're just making excuses to loot.
You're like that guy that starts stealing big screen TVs when there's a flood and then trying to blend in with some poor people that might have stolen some food and baby diapers.
Well suggest an alternative please. Because you're basically saying "we should get rid of the police"... I'm not comfortable with that idea because I know what anarchy looks like and it's not pretty.
If you want to replace or reform the existing system then I'm interested in hearing your ideas. If you merely want to make it permissible to steal other people's stuff then you've the morality of a looter... and the only real response to that is the one given for the last 10,000 years. It tends to involve something sharp or more recently something that goes "bang."
Please suggest a system that doesn't make it permissible to steal my stuff. Because I really have no patience for such agendas.
Most doctors and nurses don't invent anything. They know things other people discovered or invented. Those other people might well have been doctors but they're just as likely to be chemists or other types of scientists or engineers.
In any event, doctors would probably be fine. But they'd be using the same drugs in 200 years they're using now because nothing would have been invented.
People need to get paid. And the only way to get paid is to force people that use your stuff to pay for it. Give them the choice and often as not they'll stiff you.
Think of a resturant. Imagine if they adopted a "pay if you want" policy. Would some people pay? Sure. But lots wouldn't or would pay far less then the food/service is worth. Consequently the resturant would close being eaten out of house and home. And that's with people looking them in the eye, sitting down in front of the people they're about to rip off, eating food they prepare, and then walking out.
Are people that never have to look the people they rob in the eye more or less likely to rob them? More likely of course.
It's not going to work. Piracy is happening now because the technology advanced more quickly then our ability to control it. Sadly the great freedom we have on the internet would have been entirely sustainable and wonderful if not for this one thing. The piracy is a deal killer. It's toxic. And eventually a solution will be found for it. Hopefully the internet as we know it will survive this process but I somewhat doubt it.
Understand... I don't want the free wheeling internet I love to change. I simply know that the piracy can't go on. The cloud might fix some of these problems. By not giving customers the code and running everything on proprietary servers they can make it difficult or impossible for software to be pirated. Sadly this means the user is at the mercy of the provider as the instant their server goes off line the product vanishes. But that is one solution to the problem. There is no "cyber police" so there's nothing but anarchy out here.
Without ownership of your content why do I have to pay you for it?
Why can't I just take everything you made, use it myself, and send back long letters filled with nothing but "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" whenever you ask to be compensated? Without some legal ownership you're going to get robbed... and it will be legal.
Again... I am not saying the current patient and copyright system is good or perfect. I am simply saying we need SOMETHING like it to exist. Arguing against it on the ground that there is abuse is like arguing against having police because we've some corruption problems in the force. We need police even if we have some dirty cops. You do NOT want to live in a world without police. Likewise, you do NOT want to see what happens if patients and copyrights go away.
As to china being used as an example, I was responding to someone else that had brought up china. Had they brought up a different country my response would have been in reply to that reference. So direct all complaints about that comparison to the other guy.
All eliminating patients would do is remove any incentive to actually develop new ideas at all.
I am not claiming our current patient and copyright system is great. I am merely pointing out that it serves a purpose. Replacing it with anarchy is a horrible horrible idea.
Furthermore, china is suffering in large part because they don't have strong patient and copyright law. Everyone steals each other's ideas. The result is no innovation. Chinese companies might develop something but only if they were marketing it in another country where patient laws exist. There chinese companies could patient their product and be fairly confident that no one would infringe upon it.
Again, I am NOT saying our current system is great or even working. I'm just saying that it's better then nothing at all.
A system must be in place to allow content creators to claim ownership of their work and compel consumers of it to pay them for it's use.
Otherwise you can't make a living creating things.
The degree to which congress takes the constitution lightly is frankly appalling. I mean, fine... you want to change the first amendment? See change the constitution. We have a process for that. Think you'll get enough people to agree with that idea? Of course not. Which means congress CANNOT F"ING TOUCH IT. They don't have that right, that power, or that authority. It is not in their purview to change the constitution without going through the proper process.
The fact that they do this in various ways all the time is irrelevant. It's all illegal. Against the law. Invalid. Now maybe this makes me sound like some crazy radical living in a mobile home in the desert with stockpiles of spam waiting for the big one. But either the constitution means something or it doesn't. And if it doesn't then where exactly does congress get the power to pass laws in the first place. The constitution is where not only their power but the president's power flows from. Undermine it and basically everything becomes illegitimate. Now tell that to a the police or an unsympathetic judge or whatever and they'll laugh at you while violating those rules.
There are governments that are based on force. It is just that the US is supposed to be a Republic. A government ruled by law. And every time the constitution is taken lightly and they get away with it we have instead a government not of law but of force. Where rather then ethics and rights the judgment of who can do what is simply whoever has the money and guns to make it happen.
That is a type of tyranny. And while it might seem to be an exaggeration to go off on this tangent from some stupid opinion from some stupid legislators it's all related. Because if they gave a DAMN about the constitution they'd not suggest such an idea unless they were serious about amending the constitution. They're clearly not. They don't try to amend it anymore. They try to ignore it.
There has always been war and I really doubt there will come a time when there is no war. Ever.
That said, I think we're going to enter a more violent stage of human history as power is distributed and the various economies equalize. The third world is rising... and with that the third world will demand an equal share of power. Old or irrelevant hatreds will boil to the surface after hundreds of years of being suppressed.
If America is wise it will choose its battles and let some of these wars spend themselves on other targets rather then trying to absorb everything personally.
War will continue... the only thing you can really do is stay out of the wars that don't concern you and make a point of winning the wars that do concern you. Beyond that... war will come.
We haven't lost our economy its just that business isn't localized anymore. They can move in a way that they previously couldn't.
So if you put a gun to the head of business and say "do this or else"... they'll laugh and walk away.
That isn't losing the economy. It simply means you can't dictate policy without acknowledging the need to present a competitive business environment.
If you set things up in such a way that business is unhappy you're going to suffer for it. And you'll keep suffering.
Alternatively, if you double down and decide to enact strong tariffs it will mean a complete collapse of US exports. What you'll really be doing there is taking control of US consumers less then taking control of US companies. The US companies even with tarrifs can leave. But the US consumer is trapped.
Your law will basically tell people on the street what they can and cannot buy and at what price.
I admit there are trade offs on both sides. But the best case is simply making peace with business and offering a competitive business environment. That means reasonable taxes. Reasonable regulation. Reasonable Labor policy. reasonable environmental policy. Screw with people FOR ANY REASON in such a way that it makes US markets uncompetitive and you're going to lose investment.
Why doesn't matter. It doesn't mater. It doesn't matter. This an adult issue. Either we step up to the plate and get serious or we're going to lose and no one will shed a tear for us.
If companies are off shoring things there is an economic reason for it. No amount of regulation is going to stop that short of tariffs and that will start a trade war that at this point we might lose.
Instead, the government should look to see if it's doing anything that is encouraging the off shoring rather then looking for ways to stop it through increasing regulation.
As to the strategic and tactical importance of keeping certain code projects domestic. Of course. If all the programmers that made your banking system for example or your missile guidance system are Chinese then that's a problem.
Off shoring grunt work that isn't strategic is fine but if you do it for the core work then you're asking for trouble.
Some companies have outsourced/off shored core business services and so far as I know they've always paid a stiff price. Typically what happens is that they effectively teach a competitor how to compete and rather then cut costs they pay for the education of their competitors who then release competing products at a reduced price point.
It's something of a hopeless situation so long as people think we can maintain American competitiveness through anti trade practices.
I didn't change the topic. I responded to comments.
If you suddenly start talking about parakeets I'll probably respond to that with something about parrots... and then doubtless someone will have a snarky comment to throw at me about changing the subject again...
Whatever. The reality is that climate change has been hyped and politicized to the point where it's very hard to have a rational discussion on the issue unless everyone throws away all their preconceptions and starts fresh. The issue is just too poisoned at this point. Both sides will blame the other for this but it doesn't really matter who started it. What matters is that it happened.
I'd comment on my thoughts at this point but it would really require a restart of the investigation sans political agendas. Absent that agreement there is a political stalemate that will not be overwhelmed by more hyperbole or recriminations.
Even if that's true the arctic ice isn't relevant to sea levels since it's mostly suspended in the water anyway. The south pole's ice is more relevant there. And inconveniently to your narrative, the south pole has been quiet cold leading to if anything the opposite effect.
The effect of this sort of thing is extremely minor and while perhaps interesting distracts from the actual point here. Global sea level rise hasn't gone up much. Whatever the regional distortions are they're ancient and thus incapable of suddenly absorbing a lot of water and thus hiding it from a global survey.
Again the sort of distortion you're talking about is measured in mm not feet. If 15 percent of Greenland melted you'd be seeing a significant increase in water volume.
The publishing of peer reviewed journals is also a business or did you think they just gave those away for free? Log on to any of them and try and download the latest issue without entering a member password or getting your credit card out.
As to someone making a mistake on an atlas... I'm not blaming the global climate change movement for this error in the atlas beyond simply creating an atmosphere where such errors are going to be more likely. By ginning up all this hysteria and misinformation on the subject they're going to confuse people. Furthermore, that atlas makers otherwise known as cartographers are not fools. That is a highly technical, precise, and demanding profession that cannot be dismissed as simply a group of bozos. This is especially so because it's a highly respected series.
Everyone has the legitimacy and credibility they've earned. You can't claim it unless you've personally earned it. That atlas has a long track record of accuracy, precision, and thoughtfulness. From that they've earned a easily as much credibility in their many years of publication as any group of climate scientists that can't seem to keep themselves out of one scandal or another involving methodology, ethics, etc.
Look at the pictures yourself. They're almost identical measuring from a season to season basis. A scam people sometimes play with those photos is that they'll show one picture from a winter and compare that to another year's summer. So obviously the sea ice will be radically reduced in the summer. Take a couple photos from a given season in 1980 and compare them to a couple photos from the same season in 2010. They're very similar.
perhaps but geologically the oceans have been a great deal higher and a great deal lower. Furthermore, geologically we have records of faster changes in ocean depth so this has happened naturally in the past. And on top of that, geologically and ecologically the rising oceans don't really matter. The rocks don't care and the biosphere is perfectly capable of adapting because it has previously adapted to this happening many times in the past.
What is relevant is the human scale because the geological and ecological scale aren't relevant to the question of some moderate warming. Roughly 70 percent of the earth's population lives near and around the oceans. So a doomsday rise of 50 feet especially if it happened quickly on HUMAN terms would be catastrophic. However, if it only goes up a foot or so over several centuries then it's really not a huge deal. While some low lying populations might have to move or rebuild large parts of their cities to accommodate that they would have to do that anyway since human structures must be rebuild or heavily maintained on a fairly regular basis. The total cost in human terms is relatively minor unless the rise in the oceans is rapid and extreme. The ecological cost is negligible and the geological cost is a non-concept.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not want to copyright software. For one thing you're looking at VERY long rights that were designed for protecting artists now applying to programmers. That's not a legitimate application of the law.
Now if you want a different type of patient JUST for software then that's fine. But I really don't see the point.
Let them patient software. But don't let them patient concepts. If someone invents a cotton gin for example and patients it then someone else should be able to make another machine that does the same thing in a different way without infringing on patient. At least, that's my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong. But there has to be a way to thread the needle and make everyone happy except for the patient trolls.
Nearly all the innovative content being produced is produced with full legal protections.
Only a very very small and rather insignificant minority is produced under open source. That should tell you something. If the OpenSource method were more profitable then more people would do it.
Copyright should last at least as long as the life time of the person that made it.
If I wrote something I want copyright on it for my life time. Furthermore, there is an argument for having the term last no less then 70 or so years.
That is for copyright which would apply to creative works such as music, art, books, etc.
Patients shouldn't last more then 14 years and apply to inventions.
The law needs to be clear about what is a creative work and what is an invention. Obviously an invention is an act of creation but it's clearly different from a work of art as well.
The Windows OS for example would be something you could patient both in it's entirity and in parts. If there were a poem displayed at the very beginning of the OS's operation then you could copyright that poem but anyone could avoid copyright issues by simply removing the poem.
Then you have trademark which can be maintained in perpetuity so long as it's actively used by the company.
Anyway, in so far as innovation is concerned copyright isn't relevant. That's a patient issue since copyrights don't apply to inventions. In so far as creative works are concerned, I see no reason why copyrights restrict anyone else from creating things. Copyrights don't disallow making similar works. They merely prevent the use of that specific work. People are arguing that these rules are getting in the way of creation. Only patient law would be able to do that and patient law doesn't extend for that many years.
Is patient law being exploited? Yes. But the reforms are pretty obvious and not very radical.
I'm afraid it is stealing... and your system of doing nothing is analogous to replacing the police with nothing.
Your solution is anarchy and it's not acceptable. Please offer a reasonable reform solution or your comments are just a cry for easy looting.
We AGREE that reform is required. Understand patients are NOT going away. Copyright is NOT going away. It will NOT happen. You might as well demand free ice cream and pony rides. It will not happen. No.
Reform is what you can get. And if you ACTUALLY had some reform ideas it would suggest that you had ACTUALLY thought about the issue or ACTUALLY knew anything.
But you haven't which suggests instead that you're proposing radical policy shifts that govern billion dollar industries all over the world... completely pulled out of your own ass without any deep consideration, planning, or knowledge whatsoever.
I don't claim to be an expert here... Truly. Lots of people know a lot more about this stuff then me. But I at least know enough to know you don't go ripping organs out of a complex system without knowing exactly what that organ does and how it's connected to everything else.
Please, I don't mean to get into a flame war with you. But this is a very serious issue and it's deserves better.
Your idea of getting viewers to fund show development is a nice idea and I'd love to see it in practice.
Until I see it work though I'm a little dubious as to whether it can work.
Is that fair? Imagine the first guy making an airplane or a submarine or a rocket ship or a telephone. Did people just believe they were going to succeed? Most were skeptical.
But I'm open to what you've got. So when I see it working I'll believe it. Till then, I'm going to remain dubious.
Look at the history of innovation and discovery in western civilization.
Okay now look up when copyrights started getting issued.
Connect the dots please. Innovation might not stop but it would crash. Nothing ever really stops. But it could well be the difference between the speed of a snail and the speed of a jet plane. I mean... sure... the snail might not stop but you'll be lucky to make it out of the neighborhood where as the jet can take you to the other side of the world fairly efficiently.
Speed matters.
As to the copyright patient issue... Obviously they shouldn't enjoy both protections. That's silly. I'm not defending every stupid policy and law passed by pin head politicians and sleazy interest groups. I'm simply pointing out that the bones of the system are essential. If you want to argue about some of the flesh then that's fine. Lets talk about where some things might be reformed. But if when you start ripping the ribs out wholesale... I'm going to assume I'm dealing with a crazy person. We need something there. Obviously what we have needs to be reformed. So lets reform it. Talking about removing it entirely is counter productive. We're not doing that. Stop asking for things we're not going to do... it's silly.
If you ACTUALLY think that would work as a functional business model then consult your drug dealer... your stash was spiked... probably with a neuro toxin... or a very powerful hallucinogen.
As to my qualifications as a record executive... They made the mistake of ignoring the internet and believing through lawyers and meaningless threats they could keep pushing little plastic discs no one wants.
Apple then came along and ate their lunch... by selling copyrighted music.
The issue with the record execs has nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with not updating their business model.
I can only assume your idea of what the execs should do is just give everything away... and then pay their rent with what? Oh I know... your good will... because that's all they'd have. Which is actually entirely worthless.
Look... if you think you're going to change the law to make it suddenly legal to rip people off... then dream on.
You don't seem at all interested in reforming the system or coming up with a better system. You're just making excuses to loot.
You're like that guy that starts stealing big screen TVs when there's a flood and then trying to blend in with some poor people that might have stolen some food and baby diapers.
Try again, punk.
Well suggest an alternative please. Because you're basically saying "we should get rid of the police"... I'm not comfortable with that idea because I know what anarchy looks like and it's not pretty.
If you want to replace or reform the existing system then I'm interested in hearing your ideas. If you merely want to make it permissible to steal other people's stuff then you've the morality of a looter... and the only real response to that is the one given for the last 10,000 years. It tends to involve something sharp or more recently something that goes "bang."
Please suggest a system that doesn't make it permissible to steal my stuff. Because I really have no patience for such agendas.
Most doctors and nurses don't invent anything. They know things other people discovered or invented. Those other people might well have been doctors but they're just as likely to be chemists or other types of scientists or engineers.
In any event, doctors would probably be fine. But they'd be using the same drugs in 200 years they're using now because nothing would have been invented.
People need to get paid. And the only way to get paid is to force people that use your stuff to pay for it. Give them the choice and often as not they'll stiff you.
Think of a resturant. Imagine if they adopted a "pay if you want" policy. Would some people pay? Sure. But lots wouldn't or would pay far less then the food/service is worth. Consequently the resturant would close being eaten out of house and home. And that's with people looking them in the eye, sitting down in front of the people they're about to rip off, eating food they prepare, and then walking out.
Are people that never have to look the people they rob in the eye more or less likely to rob them? More likely of course.
It's not going to work. Piracy is happening now because the technology advanced more quickly then our ability to control it. Sadly the great freedom we have on the internet would have been entirely sustainable and wonderful if not for this one thing. The piracy is a deal killer. It's toxic. And eventually a solution will be found for it. Hopefully the internet as we know it will survive this process but I somewhat doubt it.
Understand... I don't want the free wheeling internet I love to change. I simply know that the piracy can't go on. The cloud might fix some of these problems. By not giving customers the code and running everything on proprietary servers they can make it difficult or impossible for software to be pirated. Sadly this means the user is at the mercy of the provider as the instant their server goes off line the product vanishes. But that is one solution to the problem. There is no "cyber police" so there's nothing but anarchy out here.
Without ownership of your content why do I have to pay you for it?
Why can't I just take everything you made, use it myself, and send back long letters filled with nothing but "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" whenever you ask to be compensated? Without some legal ownership you're going to get robbed... and it will be legal.
Again... I am not saying the current patient and copyright system is good or perfect. I am simply saying we need SOMETHING like it to exist. Arguing against it on the ground that there is abuse is like arguing against having police because we've some corruption problems in the force. We need police even if we have some dirty cops. You do NOT want to live in a world without police. Likewise, you do NOT want to see what happens if patients and copyrights go away.
As to china being used as an example, I was responding to someone else that had brought up china. Had they brought up a different country my response would have been in reply to that reference. So direct all complaints about that comparison to the other guy.
All eliminating patients would do is remove any incentive to actually develop new ideas at all.
I am not claiming our current patient and copyright system is great. I am merely pointing out that it serves a purpose. Replacing it with anarchy is a horrible horrible idea.
Furthermore, china is suffering in large part because they don't have strong patient and copyright law. Everyone steals each other's ideas. The result is no innovation. Chinese companies might develop something but only if they were marketing it in another country where patient laws exist. There chinese companies could patient their product and be fairly confident that no one would infringe upon it.
Again, I am NOT saying our current system is great or even working. I'm just saying that it's better then nothing at all.
A system must be in place to allow content creators to claim ownership of their work and compel consumers of it to pay them for it's use.
Otherwise you can't make a living creating things.
The information economy is about the people sitting at starbucks with their laptops making a living. It is not about the people serving them coffee.
Is it sputtering? The whole economy is sputtering.
By referencing closed bookstores and closed video rental stores the article did much to undermine it's credibility.
I think the question being asked is important and I don't claim to have the answers. But, first we have to define what we're talking about.
The degree to which congress takes the constitution lightly is frankly appalling. I mean, fine... you want to change the first amendment? See change the constitution. We have a process for that. Think you'll get enough people to agree with that idea? Of course not. Which means congress CANNOT F"ING TOUCH IT. They don't have that right, that power, or that authority. It is not in their purview to change the constitution without going through the proper process.
The fact that they do this in various ways all the time is irrelevant. It's all illegal. Against the law. Invalid. Now maybe this makes me sound like some crazy radical living in a mobile home in the desert with stockpiles of spam waiting for the big one. But either the constitution means something or it doesn't. And if it doesn't then where exactly does congress get the power to pass laws in the first place. The constitution is where not only their power but the president's power flows from. Undermine it and basically everything becomes illegitimate. Now tell that to a the police or an unsympathetic judge or whatever and they'll laugh at you while violating those rules.
There are governments that are based on force. It is just that the US is supposed to be a Republic. A government ruled by law. And every time the constitution is taken lightly and they get away with it we have instead a government not of law but of force. Where rather then ethics and rights the judgment of who can do what is simply whoever has the money and guns to make it happen.
That is a type of tyranny. And while it might seem to be an exaggeration to go off on this tangent from some stupid opinion from some stupid legislators it's all related. Because if they gave a DAMN about the constitution they'd not suggest such an idea unless they were serious about amending the constitution. They're clearly not. They don't try to amend it anymore. They try to ignore it.
There has always been war and I really doubt there will come a time when there is no war. Ever.
That said, I think we're going to enter a more violent stage of human history as power is distributed and the various economies equalize. The third world is rising... and with that the third world will demand an equal share of power. Old or irrelevant hatreds will boil to the surface after hundreds of years of being suppressed.
If America is wise it will choose its battles and let some of these wars spend themselves on other targets rather then trying to absorb everything personally.
War will continue... the only thing you can really do is stay out of the wars that don't concern you and make a point of winning the wars that do concern you. Beyond that... war will come.
We haven't lost our economy its just that business isn't localized anymore. They can move in a way that they previously couldn't.
So if you put a gun to the head of business and say "do this or else"... they'll laugh and walk away.
That isn't losing the economy. It simply means you can't dictate policy without acknowledging the need to present a competitive business environment.
If you set things up in such a way that business is unhappy you're going to suffer for it. And you'll keep suffering.
Alternatively, if you double down and decide to enact strong tariffs it will mean a complete collapse of US exports. What you'll really be doing there is taking control of US consumers less then taking control of US companies. The US companies even with tarrifs can leave. But the US consumer is trapped.
Your law will basically tell people on the street what they can and cannot buy and at what price.
I admit there are trade offs on both sides. But the best case is simply making peace with business and offering a competitive business environment. That means reasonable taxes. Reasonable regulation. Reasonable Labor policy. reasonable environmental policy. Screw with people FOR ANY REASON in such a way that it makes US markets uncompetitive and you're going to lose investment.
Why doesn't matter. It doesn't mater. It doesn't matter. This an adult issue. Either we step up to the plate and get serious or we're going to lose and no one will shed a tear for us.
If companies are off shoring things there is an economic reason for it. No amount of regulation is going to stop that short of tariffs and that will start a trade war that at this point we might lose.
Instead, the government should look to see if it's doing anything that is encouraging the off shoring rather then looking for ways to stop it through increasing regulation.
As to the strategic and tactical importance of keeping certain code projects domestic. Of course. If all the programmers that made your banking system for example or your missile guidance system are Chinese then that's a problem.
Off shoring grunt work that isn't strategic is fine but if you do it for the core work then you're asking for trouble.
Some companies have outsourced/off shored core business services and so far as I know they've always paid a stiff price. Typically what happens is that they effectively teach a competitor how to compete and rather then cut costs they pay for the education of their competitors who then release competing products at a reduced price point.
It's something of a hopeless situation so long as people think we can maintain American competitiveness through anti trade practices.
I didn't change the topic. I responded to comments.
If you suddenly start talking about parakeets I'll probably respond to that with something about parrots... and then doubtless someone will have a snarky comment to throw at me about changing the subject again...
Whatever. The reality is that climate change has been hyped and politicized to the point where it's very hard to have a rational discussion on the issue unless everyone throws away all their preconceptions and starts fresh. The issue is just too poisoned at this point. Both sides will blame the other for this but it doesn't really matter who started it. What matters is that it happened.
I'd comment on my thoughts at this point but it would really require a restart of the investigation sans political agendas. Absent that agreement there is a political stalemate that will not be overwhelmed by more hyperbole or recriminations.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
Even your own citation said it was growing.
I don't claim to be an expert here... I just see this stuff in the paper and try to pay attention.
Even if that's true the arctic ice isn't relevant to sea levels since it's mostly suspended in the water anyway. The south pole's ice is more relevant there. And inconveniently to your narrative, the south pole has been quiet cold leading to if anything the opposite effect.
The effect of this sort of thing is extremely minor and while perhaps interesting distracts from the actual point here. Global sea level rise hasn't gone up much. Whatever the regional distortions are they're ancient and thus incapable of suddenly absorbing a lot of water and thus hiding it from a global survey.
Again the sort of distortion you're talking about is measured in mm not feet. If 15 percent of Greenland melted you'd be seeing a significant increase in water volume.
Somehow I think 5 feet of sea level rise isn't hiding in greater rainfall leading to some marginal storage in the aquifers.
You might explain away a few mm that way but not feet.
The publishing of peer reviewed journals is also a business or did you think they just gave those away for free? Log on to any of them and try and download the latest issue without entering a member password or getting your credit card out.
As to someone making a mistake on an atlas... I'm not blaming the global climate change movement for this error in the atlas beyond simply creating an atmosphere where such errors are going to be more likely. By ginning up all this hysteria and misinformation on the subject they're going to confuse people. Furthermore, that atlas makers otherwise known as cartographers are not fools. That is a highly technical, precise, and demanding profession that cannot be dismissed as simply a group of bozos. This is especially so because it's a highly respected series.
Everyone has the legitimacy and credibility they've earned. You can't claim it unless you've personally earned it. That atlas has a long track record of accuracy, precision, and thoughtfulness. From that they've earned a easily as much credibility in their many years of publication as any group of climate scientists that can't seem to keep themselves out of one scandal or another involving methodology, ethics, etc.
Look at the pictures yourself. They're almost identical measuring from a season to season basis. A scam people sometimes play with those photos is that they'll show one picture from a winter and compare that to another year's summer. So obviously the sea ice will be radically reduced in the summer. Take a couple photos from a given season in 1980 and compare them to a couple photos from the same season in 2010. They're very similar.
perhaps but geologically the oceans have been a great deal higher and a great deal lower. Furthermore, geologically we have records of faster changes in ocean depth so this has happened naturally in the past. And on top of that, geologically and ecologically the rising oceans don't really matter. The rocks don't care and the biosphere is perfectly capable of adapting because it has previously adapted to this happening many times in the past.
What is relevant is the human scale because the geological and ecological scale aren't relevant to the question of some moderate warming. Roughly 70 percent of the earth's population lives near and around the oceans. So a doomsday rise of 50 feet especially if it happened quickly on HUMAN terms would be catastrophic. However, if it only goes up a foot or so over several centuries then it's really not a huge deal. While some low lying populations might have to move or rebuild large parts of their cities to accommodate that they would have to do that anyway since human structures must be rebuild or heavily maintained on a fairly regular basis. The total cost in human terms is relatively minor unless the rise in the oceans is rapid and extreme. The ecological cost is negligible and the geological cost is a non-concept.