Dammit! No legislation, no net-cops, no government soveriegnty over the use of force on the net.
Repeat after me:
"It is not the role of Congress, nor does Congress have the statutory authority, to provide and direct a profitable business model to any industry. That role is the Supreme Province of the consumer by individual actions in the Free Market."
Repeat daily until a clue is found. Repeat thrice daily if a member of any legislature.
I haven't read all the comments here, but this arguement isn't often raised as it doesn't have much to do with copyrights, Linux, etc.:
It is not the job of Congress to promote one industry at the expense of another. This is antithetical to the concept and practice of a free market economy, and reeks of the political-capitalism of the early 1900s when businesses begged for regulation to prevent competition. Congress should not choose how and how much profit a firm may make, nor should it be in the business of guaranteeing profit by force.
Quite simply, if it is not profitable to release copyrighted works in digital formats, then don't do it. That is the free market solution and the only one that is compatible with the ideals of liberty.
Oh, I'd agree completely except that demographics != influence. Just because the "fringe" are few in number do not mean that they unduly influence policy. That's supposedly one of the concerns of campaign finance reformers. In this case, I think that the WWF and UNESCO hold these views and really aren't "fringe" groups. And they do have lots of sway. More mainstream groups like the Sierra Club also profess support for the Wildlands Project, although perhaps they really don't know what it's goals are.
Even if the environmentalists, et al. are right, I don't want their medicine. The end goal of the most fervent wings of the movement is to have humanity returned to a pre-industrial condition in scattered pockets amidst the untamed wilderness. Get ye to Google and look on "Wildlands Project map" or "Man and Biosphere" for indications where the U.N. and it's green wings want to take us.
Keep in mind that to enforce environmental regulations will require greater and greater government control. Also remember the governments have been the single most destructive force in the 20th century, killing nearly 200 million of their own citizens, and scads more in times of war. We do not want the enforced depopulation of humanity.
Go research the end-game of the environmental movements most fervent believers and decide which is the greater threat, higher water or slavery.
I choose to live free, even if it kills me. And I mean that.
Son, what Belgium needs is a revolution. The fact that people allow others to steal more than half of what they earn is insane. You said 55% income tax and I assume there are VATs, extravagant energy/gas taxes, etc. I summed up all my taxes once (I live in Texas, USA) and it's near 40%. At 40% I'm about ready to "storm the castle". At 55+%, I'd already be in Washington doing something about it. Or hell, I'd just vote to have Texas leave the Union. Either way, strikes and protests would be in order and at last resort... other means.
Anyway, I feel for you and with Europe consolidating into a more federal system someday, don't count on it getting any better. Look what happened to "states rights" over here. You'll lose them one by one until people in Spain can tell you what kind of toilets you can install in your house.
I don't really want people to perceive the government as "easy to use". I'd rather have people see it as it is, a burden. Similarly, I'd rather have income taxes not withheld from each paycheck so that people have to pay the IRS each month and realize where their 20,000 dollars a year goes. Then, perhaps, people will want to reduce their tax burden and save us from an ever expansive state.
Mr. Clark can spend all his little heart desires on embryonic stem cell research of any sort. Mr. Bush's decision just says MY money might not be able to be spent on the same thing as his. Personally, I'm glad to see that my money, extorted from me at gunpoint, will not be used to destroy life. And yes, I actually think that in-vitro fertilization is not yet ready for human use since so many excess embryos are created.
There are 2 logical places to call "the beginning of life" for humans : conception and birth. Since a baby 1 minute before birth is little different than 1 minute after birth, and there isn't much of a scientifically defensible dividing line between birth and conception, I choose conception. The Supreme Court made up the trimester system to decide this issue, but I've seen a film of a co-worker's son well before the first trimester was over. Trust me, he was human. By the way, how many people have "fetus showers"?
Once that's been decided, the logic gets pretty simple. I don't create life to kill just to save my own. If we can't use IVF without excess life, then don't use it. People can adopt. Abortion also becomes murder. All of these actions have one thing in common: a choice was made to create life or proceed with an activity which creates life. Maybe some people want human life to be treated as cheaply as mice, but I don't.
Personally, if the federal government didn't extort nearly as much money from us, then we'd all be free to donate our own money to causes that we support without politics and government strings getting involved. Surely, that's something most people could support?
SpaceAgeComics is run by an old friend of mine and has a variety of comics, old and new, from the Austin area and then some. If you visit, tell the editor I sent you...
As a designer of helicopter rotor systems I can tell you that, yes, Ti is good stuff. I'm a personal fan of TI-Al6V4, we use it all over the BA609 tiltrotor (www.bellhelicopter.textron). However, as others have mentioned, the stuff is difficult to machine and has a real problem with galling, meaning that splines and other components with relative motion aren't good applications. But, hey, I'm all for cheaper Ti.
However, God intended Ti to belong in airplanes, helicopters, and Soviet submarines. It does not belong in golf clubs. Everytime I hear a vendor turn us down because their production capacity is taken by golf clubs I want to kill someone;-) Can't say I blame them... no liability, no quality assurance, and no need for machining tolerances on the order of a few thousandths of an inch.
Seems like if the codec hardware is "low power" compared to the RAM you might save, not to mention packaging space, that this technology might have some valid uses in laptops and other portables. This is doubly true considering the slower nature of most laptop hard drives and thus their page file.
The interesting thing here is that the visual/distance data is processed not by the retina (which does a fair amount of processing before the signals get to the rest of the brain), but by the computer system. This is a great test of various theories of what type of lower/upper level processing is done by the brain.
I have to admit, the direct neural link is pretty interesting, too.
While the question of the geometry of the Universe is still open, it seems that there is a good chance that it will be "open", i.e. expanding forever until all cools into low temperature thermal radiation or some such dismal fate.
As I believe that life is one of the most precious things ever found, can life itself have an effect on the Universe as a whole to further life's existance?
I suppose I'm wondering if our own ingenuity can perhaps forstall or even evade a situation far in the future where there is no longer sufficient energy differences, etc. to support life.
Long term thinking? Yes. Worth asking? I think so.
This is the question for me. This impacts food production issues, but the prospects of the commercialization of the human genome is interesting/frightening.
If we agree Nature has a BSD-ish license where we do not have to return the modifications to the general whole, companies can make insane amounts of money creating and copyrighting genes for increased strength, intellegence, etc. These will be liscensed to parents for money. Potentially, the resulting kids will exist at the whim of the creating company since they hold key licenses inside the person.
If only a subset of the population can benefit from these genetic advances due to monetary concerns, will there be a potential fragmentation of the human genome? Even more likely, what will the social rammifications be?
A GPL-type license for Nature could help alleviate some of these concerns. It might, however, slow down genetic advancements. Of course, this might not be a bad thing.
I think these are issues we need to hammer out as DNA will become the source code of the next century and beyond as humans take control of their evolutionary paths.
The question is, do we want free market forces with it's emphasis on short term profit to drive the evolution of the human genome?
I'm all for making money on a good idea, but to me, there are somethings that are more important than making money.. and I think WE are one of them.
Well, from a mathematical and algorithmic standpoint, software and hardware are the same and interchangeable. Hence, emulators work and the Rio accomplishes the same task as X11amp. One is a number etched into silicon and the other is a number executed by a number etched in silicon.
Of course, this doesn't mean that current laws are in good shape;)
But make no mistake, software is the same as hardware (for Turing devices, i.e. current digital computers), software is just easier to create, distribute, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit! No legislation, no net-cops, no government soveriegnty over the use of force on the net.
Repeat after me:
"It is not the role of Congress, nor does Congress have the statutory authority, to provide and direct a profitable business model to any industry. That role is the Supreme Province of the consumer by individual actions in the Free Market."
Repeat daily until a clue is found. Repeat thrice daily if a member of any legislature.
Bryan Baskin
I haven't read all the comments here, but this arguement isn't often raised as it doesn't have much to do with copyrights, Linux, etc.:
It is not the job of Congress to promote one industry at the expense of another. This is antithetical to the concept and practice of a free market economy, and reeks of the political-capitalism of the early 1900s when businesses begged for regulation to prevent competition. Congress should not choose how and how much profit a firm may make, nor should it be in the business of guaranteeing profit by force.
Quite simply, if it is not profitable to release copyrighted works in digital formats, then don't do it. That is the free market solution and the only one that is compatible with the ideals of liberty.
Bryan Baskin
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bryanbaskin
Oh, I'd agree completely except that demographics != influence. Just because the "fringe" are few in number do not mean that they unduly influence policy. That's supposedly one of the concerns of campaign finance reformers. In this case, I think that the WWF and UNESCO hold these views and really aren't "fringe" groups. And they do have lots of sway. More mainstream groups like the Sierra Club also profess support for the Wildlands Project, although perhaps they really don't know what it's goals are.
Even if the environmentalists, et al. are right, I don't want their medicine. The end goal of the most fervent wings of the movement is to have humanity returned to a pre-industrial condition in scattered pockets amidst the untamed wilderness. Get ye to Google and look on "Wildlands Project map" or "Man and Biosphere" for indications where the U.N. and it's green wings want to take us.
Keep in mind that to enforce environmental regulations will require greater and greater government control. Also remember the governments have been the single most destructive force in the 20th century, killing nearly 200 million of their own citizens, and scads more in times of war. We do not want the enforced depopulation of humanity.
Go research the end-game of the environmental movements most fervent believers and decide which is the greater threat, higher water or slavery.
I choose to live free, even if it kills me. And I mean that.
Bryan Baskin
Son, what Belgium needs is a revolution. The fact that people allow others to steal more than half of what they earn is insane. You said 55% income tax and I assume there are VATs, extravagant energy/gas taxes, etc. I summed up all my taxes once (I live in Texas, USA) and it's near 40%. At 40% I'm about ready to "storm the castle". At 55+%, I'd already be in Washington doing something about it. Or hell, I'd just vote to have Texas leave the Union. Either way, strikes and protests would be in order and at last resort... other means.
Anyway, I feel for you and with Europe consolidating into a more federal system someday, don't count on it getting any better. Look what happened to "states rights" over here. You'll lose them one by one until people in Spain can tell you what kind of toilets you can install in your house.
Good luck.
I don't really want people to perceive the government as "easy to use". I'd rather have people see it as it is, a burden. Similarly, I'd rather have income taxes not withheld from each paycheck so that people have to pay the IRS each month and realize where their 20,000 dollars a year goes. Then, perhaps, people will want to reduce their tax burden and save us from an ever expansive state.
Mr. Clark can spend all his little heart desires on embryonic stem cell research of any sort. Mr. Bush's decision just says MY money might not be able to be spent on the same thing as his. Personally, I'm glad to see that my money, extorted from me at gunpoint, will not be used to destroy life. And yes, I actually think that in-vitro fertilization is not yet ready for human use since so many excess embryos are created.
There are 2 logical places to call "the beginning of life" for humans : conception and birth. Since a baby 1 minute before birth is little different than 1 minute after birth, and there isn't much of a scientifically defensible dividing line between birth and conception, I choose conception. The Supreme Court made up the trimester system to decide this issue, but I've seen a film of a co-worker's son well before the first trimester was over. Trust me, he was human. By the way, how many people have "fetus showers"?
Once that's been decided, the logic gets pretty simple. I don't create life to kill just to save my own. If we can't use IVF without excess life, then don't use it. People can adopt. Abortion also becomes murder. All of these actions have one thing in common: a choice was made to create life or proceed with an activity which creates life. Maybe some people want human life to be treated as cheaply as mice, but I don't.
Personally, if the federal government didn't extort nearly as much money from us, then we'd all be free to donate our own money to causes that we support without politics and government strings getting involved. Surely, that's something most people could support?
Bryan Baskin
SpaceAgeComics is run by an old friend of mine and has a variety of comics, old and new, from the Austin area and then some. If you visit, tell the editor I sent you...
Bryan Baskin
As a designer of helicopter rotor systems I can tell you that, yes, Ti is good stuff. I'm a personal fan of TI-Al6V4, we use it all over the BA609 tiltrotor (www.bellhelicopter.textron). However, as others have mentioned, the stuff is difficult to machine and has a real problem with galling, meaning that splines and other components with relative motion aren't good applications. But, hey, I'm all for cheaper Ti.
;-) Can't say I blame them... no liability, no quality assurance, and no need for machining tolerances on the order of a few thousandths of an inch.
However, God intended Ti to belong in airplanes, helicopters, and Soviet submarines. It does not belong in golf clubs. Everytime I hear a vendor turn us down because their production capacity is taken by golf clubs I want to kill someone
Baskin
Seems like if the codec hardware is "low power" compared to the RAM you might save, not to mention packaging space, that this technology might have some valid uses in laptops and other portables. This is doubly true considering the slower nature of most laptop hard drives and thus their page file.
Bryan Baskin
The interesting thing here is that the visual/distance data is processed not by the retina (which does a fair amount of processing before the signals get to the rest of the brain), but by the computer system. This is a great test of various theories of what type of lower/upper level processing is done by the brain.
I have to admit, the direct neural link is pretty interesting, too.
Bryan Baskin
Dr. Lederman,
While the question of the geometry of the Universe is still open, it seems that there is a good chance that it will be "open", i.e. expanding forever until all cools into low temperature thermal radiation or some such dismal fate.
As I believe that life is one of the most precious things ever found, can life itself have an effect on the Universe as a whole to further life's existance?
I suppose I'm wondering if our own ingenuity can perhaps forstall or even evade a situation far in the future where there is no longer sufficient energy differences, etc. to support life.
Long term thinking? Yes. Worth asking? I think so.
Bryan Baskin
This is the question for me. This impacts food production issues, but the prospects of the commercialization of the human genome is interesting/frightening.
If we agree Nature has a BSD-ish license where we do not have to return the modifications to the general whole, companies can make insane amounts of money creating and copyrighting genes for increased strength, intellegence, etc. These will be liscensed to parents for money. Potentially, the resulting kids will exist at the whim of the creating company since they hold key licenses inside the person.
If only a subset of the population can benefit from these genetic advances due to monetary concerns, will there be a potential fragmentation of the human genome? Even more likely, what will the social rammifications be?
A GPL-type license for Nature could help alleviate some of these concerns. It might, however, slow down genetic advancements. Of course, this might not be a bad thing.
I think these are issues we need to hammer out as DNA will become the source code of the next century and beyond as humans take control of their evolutionary paths.
The question is, do we want free market forces with it's emphasis on short term profit to drive the evolution of the human genome?
I'm all for making money on a good idea, but to me, there are somethings that are more important than making money.. and I think WE are one of them.
Bryan K. Baskin
Of course, this doesn't mean that current laws are in good shape
But make no mistake, software is the same as hardware (for Turing devices, i.e. current digital computers), software is just easier to create, distribute, etc.