Actually, it was more than one doctor, but as you say, not a consensus of multiple doctors in a double-blind test.
I do know, for a fact, that the environment has physical affects on me and others, and its not just the biological environment, molds, pollen, etc.. Its the hydrocarbon pollution from industry, transportation, paints, solvents and other fumes. It seems no one wants to admit that humans are affected by this pollution, but they are, and it can be very painful.
In 1967 I was advised by an MD to start smoking because it would help my asthma. Studies since then have shown the hazards of smoke and secondhand smoke. I smoked for 17 years after that, have been quit for more than 20, but still have asthma.
Asthma is quite often triggered by the very chemical pollution your AAFP article would seem to deny. No, I don't have clinical trials, just my own experience. When the pollution is low, my asthma is tolerable, when the pollution is high, my asthma is painful. When I get near fresh paint or other forms of pollution my lungs start hurting. This is not psychosomatic at all, its a real pain and goes away when the source is removed amd my lungs have had a chance to clear.
BTW, several allergists have said that you can't be allergic to chemicals. Go figure.
I'm glad you're healthy and can dismiss the rest of us that have health problems. May you never lose your health, but I hope a little compassion comes your way.
Actually, the license can limit you to what you can do with the DVD, CD, or piece of software. Its like a contract and if you agree to the contract, you're stuck. For example, its illegal to watch your DVD under Linux with DeCSS based players. Under the latest Microsoft OS'es, you can't use VNC to remotely access them, etc.
So yes, even for personal use, licenses can limit you to what you can do legally.
You don't seem to understand... if we take the analogy of a movie as a book, then DRM is the equivalent of saying that "You can read your book in the living room, den, or study, but you cannot read it while eating, or while sitting on the john.". If that's a bad analogy, then tell me where I'm wrong. I don't want limits on the things I *buy*. If it comes into my possession, it's mine. I'll agree to not copy it and give it away, but limits on what I can do with it while in my possession are ridiculous in the extreme.
Or better yet, sign him up for beastial, homosexual, snuff, fetish, pedophile, and other related magazines. Would match some of the spew he's sent our way.
As the spouse of a Librarian, I can assure you that *most* modern libraries do not track lending habits past the currently checked out books. The ALA (American Library Association) stance is one favoring privacy, not government intervention.
Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.
I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
The effect is the same. You won't lose your right to the Patent or Copyright IP, but if you don't have the money to assert it, the effect is the same. While they sit there making money off your idea, you get to watch.
You're confusing reality with law, a common practice amongst lawyers.
Actually, if he does not have the resources to defend his patent, he'll lose it. If he does not have the resources to litigate against people that abuse his patent, he'll lose it.
All Patent and Copyright laws do is give the owner the right to sue to protect their property. If they do not have the money to sue, they will lose. It's very simple, and does tend to favor the well off.
Even if I said nothing on the internet, I'd be in trouble as soon as I opened my mouth. I choose not to travel or do business with any country where complaining is not a given. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the politics.
Actually, having the "authentic" CD is not enough to satisfy Microsoft. You have to have that idiot piece of paper with the holograph. You know, the one that you just threw away along with the other trash that came with the CD.
I've got a ton of original CD's, but I've never saved the trash that came with them. I never will.
I mean MY computer. If it comes into my office or into my home, I'll either control it completely and without reservation, or it goes out. I would not trust Microsoft or Redhat to KNOW what I wanted, and I surely would not trust anything influenced by the RIAA or the government. I may install Microsoft XP on a machine, but the router has a semi-permanent block on microsoft.com and any other thing like doubleclick that would steal information.
You see, its a battle of wills, and I'm the most stubborn individual on the planet and I will NOT be told how to use something in my possession.
I wonder how they plan to protect against those of us that buy and assemble our own hardware and run Linux on that. The USA has no control over the Taiwan clones, and no one is going to support a USA version plus an International version of the hardware.
Mr. Jack needs to get serious and look at the real world, not just the insular United States of Hollywood.
At one of the large companies in my past we used IMAP servers with a 6-month retention period and nightly purges to assure desctruction. That worked until people discovered that they could MOVE the message from the server to their local drives. When a lawsuit came along we had to turn over the contents of our local email clients as well, so if you saved that message from the boss that said "Screw the client and don't tell them about this problem.", you just cost the company some large sums of money.
Those seemingly trivial things such as email are far to important in showing intent. Most people would not put out a paper memo saying "Screw the client...", but they would say that in email, without much thought. Email is very dangerous that way. A lot of "He said, she said..." arguments are settled with an email and its reply, all properly dated, printed and presented to a jury.
Probably, but if I were really paranoid, no password would work on any data that had been removed from its original machine. Thus, the destruct password would always work, or the original password would be the destruct password on the investigating authority's machine.
The genie of encryption is out of the bottle and the only thing laws can do is to make criminals of even more of us. How do they plan on enforcing the use of 'safe' encryption? Do they really think we would be stupid enough to put "Encrypted Message" in the subject of an email? Without that, it just looks like any other message.
Yes, privacy is the issue. If you use plastic, they can track your every move. I don't do anything to cause them to want to, but I still use cash at every chance just to keep from being yet another statistic in the grand scheme of things.
Just for stats, I'm in the upper end of the food chain, so I really don't want DoubleClick to be able to match my spending habits at the home theatre store to my online purchases and try to send me some targeted advertising telling me that I need a new and better frobox. If I want it, I'll look for it. The fact that I may not know its there does not bother me in the least, but being told that I don't know annoys the hell out of me.
I do it because of the internet. It was built by people much more knowledgable than M$'s and is being maintained by those same people. M$ wants to take that over and control it, all the way down to the packet level if they have their way. Those of us in a free country cannot allow that level of control over our lives.
In the 1980's McAfee pulled together a volunteer organization to disect viruses and I was one of the volunteers. I managed to do about a half dozen or so virus disections and provided the unique strings to use in searching. Many other volunteers supplied a lot more. Less than a year after the start, McAfee went commercial. Guess what? Not a penny to the volunteers, even though he did a "Bait and Switch" operation. If what Graceland did is illegal, then McAfee's was as well.
Next, businesses use email a lot to encrypt email. Without that, any idea you put on the net is considered public disclosure and could cost you dearly. My company uses encryption on all email, even jokes and comments. If someone is spying, the extra traffic makes it more difficult. Its automagic with Netscape.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it was more than one doctor, but as you say, not a consensus of multiple doctors in a double-blind test.
I do know, for a fact, that the environment has physical affects on me and others, and its not just the biological environment, molds, pollen, etc.. Its the hydrocarbon pollution from industry, transportation, paints, solvents and other fumes. It seems no one wants to admit that humans are affected by this pollution, but they are, and it can be very painful.
And doctors know everything...
In 1967 I was advised by an MD to start smoking because it would help my asthma. Studies since then have shown the hazards of smoke and secondhand smoke. I smoked for 17 years after that, have been quit for more than 20, but still have asthma.
Asthma is quite often triggered by the very chemical pollution your AAFP article would seem to deny. No, I don't have clinical trials, just my own experience. When the pollution is low, my asthma is tolerable, when the pollution is high, my asthma is painful. When I get near fresh paint or other forms of pollution my lungs start hurting. This is not psychosomatic at all, its a real pain and goes away when the source is removed amd my lungs have had a chance to clear.
BTW, several allergists have said that you can't be allergic to chemicals. Go figure.
I'm glad you're healthy and can dismiss the rest of us that have health problems. May you never lose your health, but I hope a little compassion comes your way.
Actually, the license can limit you to what you can do with the DVD, CD, or piece of software. Its like a contract and if you agree to the contract, you're stuck. For example, its illegal to watch your DVD under Linux with DeCSS based players. Under the latest Microsoft OS'es, you can't use VNC to remotely access them, etc.
So yes, even for personal use, licenses can limit you to what you can do legally.
You don't seem to understand... if we take the analogy of a movie as a book, then DRM is the equivalent of saying that "You can read your book in the living room, den, or study, but you cannot read it while eating, or while sitting on the john.". If that's a bad analogy, then tell me where I'm wrong. I don't want limits on the things I *buy*. If it comes into my possession, it's mine. I'll agree to not copy it and give it away, but limits on what I can do with it while in my possession are ridiculous in the extreme.
Or better yet, sign him up for beastial, homosexual, snuff, fetish, pedophile, and other related magazines. Would match some of the spew he's sent our way.
Is it XML, or MS-XML?
As the spouse of a Librarian, I can assure you that *most* modern libraries do not track lending habits past the currently checked out books. The ALA (American Library Association) stance is one favoring privacy, not government intervention.
Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.
I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
The effect is the same. You won't lose your right to the Patent or Copyright IP, but if you don't have the money to assert it, the effect is the same. While they sit there making money off your idea, you get to watch.
You're confusing reality with law, a common practice amongst lawyers.
Actually, if he does not have the resources to defend his patent, he'll lose it. If he does not have the resources to litigate against people that abuse his patent, he'll lose it.
All Patent and Copyright laws do is give the owner the right to sue to protect their property. If they do not have the money to sue, they will lose. It's very simple, and does tend to favor the well off.
Even if I said nothing on the internet, I'd be in trouble as soon as I opened my mouth. I choose not to travel or do business with any country where complaining is not a given. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the politics.
Now if more people would just follow suit.
Actually, having the "authentic" CD is not enough to satisfy Microsoft. You have to have that idiot piece of paper with the holograph. You know, the one that you just threw away along with the other trash that came with the CD.
I've got a ton of original CD's, but I've never saved the trash that came with them. I never will.
I mean MY computer. If it comes into my office or into my home, I'll either control it completely and without reservation, or it goes out. I would not trust Microsoft or Redhat to KNOW what I wanted, and I surely would not trust anything influenced by the RIAA or the government. I may install Microsoft XP on a machine, but the router has a semi-permanent block on microsoft.com and any other thing like doubleclick that would steal information.
You see, its a battle of wills, and I'm the most stubborn individual on the planet and I will NOT be told how to use something in my possession.
As long as you don't publish, you're safe.
I wonder how they plan to protect against those of us that buy and assemble our own hardware and run Linux on that. The USA has no control over the Taiwan clones, and no one is going to support a USA version plus an International version of the hardware.
Mr. Jack needs to get serious and look at the real world, not just the insular United States of Hollywood.
At one of the large companies in my past we used IMAP servers with a 6-month retention period and nightly purges to assure desctruction. That worked until people discovered that they could MOVE the message from the server to their local drives. When a lawsuit came along we had to turn over the contents of our local email clients as well, so if you saved that message from the boss that said "Screw the client and don't tell them about this problem.", you just cost the company some large sums of money.
Those seemingly trivial things such as email are far to important in showing intent. Most people would not put out a paper memo saying "Screw the client...", but they would say that in email, without much thought. Email is very dangerous that way. A lot of "He said, she said..." arguments are settled with an email and its reply, all properly dated, printed and presented to a jury.
Probably, but if I were really paranoid, no password would work on any data that had been removed from its original machine. Thus, the destruct password would always work, or the original password would be the destruct password on the investigating authority's machine.
Come to think of it, I am that paranoid...
Best Practices says that if your password or keys are compromised, you need to change them as soon as possible.
Or we need to develop an "under duress" password capability that destroys the data if used.
Whoops, I gave you the wrong password. My bad.
The fact that I use cash means they don't know I exist, or don't care, because they can't track me.
The genie of encryption is out of the bottle and the only thing laws can do is to make criminals of even more of us. How do they plan on enforcing the use of 'safe' encryption? Do they really think we would be stupid enough to put "Encrypted Message" in the subject of an email? Without that, it just looks like any other message.
Yes, privacy is the issue. If you use plastic, they can track your every move. I don't do anything to cause them to want to, but I still use cash at every chance just to keep from being yet another statistic in the grand scheme of things.
Just for stats, I'm in the upper end of the food chain, so I really don't want DoubleClick to be able to match my spending habits at the home theatre store to my online purchases and try to send me some targeted advertising telling me that I need a new and better frobox. If I want it, I'll look for it. The fact that I may not know its there does not bother me in the least, but being told that I don't know annoys the hell out of me.
I do it because of the internet. It was built by people much more knowledgable than M$'s and is being maintained by those same people. M$ wants to take that over and control it, all the way down to the packet level if they have their way. Those of us in a free country cannot allow that level of control over our lives.
In the 1980's McAfee pulled together a volunteer organization to disect viruses and I was one of the volunteers. I managed to do about a half dozen or so virus disections and provided the unique strings to use in searching. Many other volunteers supplied a lot more. Less than a year after the start, McAfee went commercial. Guess what? Not a penny to the volunteers, even though he did a "Bait and Switch" operation. If what Graceland did is illegal, then McAfee's was as well.
And I thought all I was seeing was various aspects of Angelina Jolie's marvelous figure in full motion. I did not realize it needed a plot...
A good movie, even with all the overhead of a plot and characters.
Why would I want an ill eagle?
Next, businesses use email a lot to encrypt email. Without that, any idea you put on the net is considered public disclosure and could cost you dearly. My company uses encryption on all email, even jokes and comments. If someone is spying, the extra traffic makes it more difficult. Its automagic with Netscape.
My understanding is that Mozilla will not support secure email (Verisign Certs). If that's the case, then our shop cannot use Mozilla.