Nazi research on the Jews, specificly research pretaining to the effects of low presures and temperatures on the human body was the foundation of our space program (and our ability to develop the a space suit).
Japanese research into the effects of various viruses/bacterium on the human body in unit 731 (frequently considred a great deal more vicious than the Nazi research) yeilded results which the US would keep secret until the 1980s for use in our own biowarfare programs. (Hypotheticly ending in 1972).
This is to say nothing of more engineering related research done by the Nazis such as balistic rocketry (space program), jet engines, and hydrogen based power plants for submarines (precurser to the modern fuel cell? I'm not sure on that one).
To reply to a bunch of people. There's a lot of angles to this.
First off you don't allow this to get out of hand. A genetic defect could be built into such a bacterium (a virus isn't much good for eating oil)... say... an intolerance to a specific protein. Lace your oil with the protean save your supply. Either that or allow only X number of generations... I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure there's a way. This limits the amount of oil/whatever destroyed.
Option 2 of course is design a bacterium that only eats diesel fuel or gasoline. That saves the crude oil.
As for the qestion of how fast can you grow a peanut? 5 Months. In comparison to the several million years for oil to form that seems like a good deal.
Admittedly the destruction of the world oil reserves would suck tremendously. It would cause a period of inflation and other economic shock heretofor unheard of. But industrial civilization would survive.
The idea of producing a bacterium that eats ammunition is infnitely more entertaining anyhow. Especialy one that could convert things like high powered military exposives into something significanly less stable:-)
I think we're missing the point here. If the state law says that below a certain age you can't purchace games of certain content below the age of 18 the case isn't a free speech case.
Well it is, but not really. The Court has held over and over again that the state has a compelling interest to regulate the symbolic speech of minors (voting with their wallets so to speek).
Because of this precident, the case is effectivly an interstate commerce case. That makes it a great deal more clear cut and simple.
Fundamentaly the same laws that prevent your 8 year old brother from buying a Penthouse prevent him from buying Quake III.
If this guy had ruled that it was illegal to sell Quake III in his state, period, that would be a free speech case.
In short I don't think that this case is as great a setback as this list seems to think it is. By overreacting to this I think the geek community (for lack of a better phrase) only demonstrates its poor grasp of our legal system and what it was intended to do.
There are upsides to all this too. Yes, your late model sports car is tracked at all times... which makes your movements pretty much public. At the same time, the same equipment that tracks your sports car can also allert police if you're in an accident, automaticly dispatching an ambulance (based on the delta V of the impact). The same network can determine instantly who you ran into, what lane they were in and what they were doing, and from that get a pretty good idea of who's at fault. State law is referenced and depending on the severity of damage (from a self diagnostic) the accident is reported to your insurance company who gets to work on the claim before you've even steped out of the car.
Me? I'm liking that system.
The money you spend, authenticated by its unique chip, drops the counterfiting rate substantialy. This stabilizes US currency and could have an overall beneficial effect in the long run (ok.. it's a long shot). As for tracking who had what monies where and what they were spent on... taxes get lots easier when there's never a recipt to keep. Everyone can do the long form and the short form in the same amount of time... lots of money spent... and saved.
This logic reminds me of two historical examples of this kind of phrasing.
During the 2nd World War the Brits informed the world that they were blocading Germany's ports. Under international law a blocade must be recognised only if the blocader has the wherewithall to enforce the blocade. The US decided that the UK had the ability to do so, even though the blocade was so laughably understaffed as to be nearly non-existant.
The same kind of language was used in the treaty of London (1600s). The treaty stated that a colony could only be said to belong to a foreign power if it had the ability to defend it.
The key to both of these is that they legaly protect only that which can protect itself. In one case (WWII) that ability is recognised where it does not exist. In the case of the Treaty of London, however, no such recognition was given. The question is why.
In the case of the second world war, the US and UK had a mutual interest in preventing a Nazi occupation of Europe. This mutual interest lead the US to recognise a British blocade which didn't exist.
In the case of the Treaty of London the various European powers were at each other's throats. Becuse competition was feirce there were no such favors done.
But how, you may ask, does this tie back to the origional conversation? The DMCA is yet another case of legislation which protects that which doesn't need protecting. Or rather, that which doesn't need protecting right now (thank you Moore's Law).
The danger lies in the possibility of mutualy acknowledeged interests between the record companies and.... who? Constitutionaly it's the roll of the judicial branch to interpret laws. Judges are supposed to be politicaly independent, or at least shielded.
Unfortunately this has been a bit more of a rant than I intended. There are three ways to deal with the DMCA. One is to overturn it in the Courts. This is possible only if those mutual interests don't exist. Another is to legislate it out of existance. Campaign contributions make that impossible... or at least difficult. Finaly there is the possibility of making it impossible to enforce. How that works is a bit over my head. We'll see....
This is obviously some definition of the word "liberal" with which I was not previously aquainted.
If you mean liberal in the tree huging, pot smoking, down with the Man and big corporations are taking over the planet sence.... no. That kind of contract, while it does protect buisnesses, also protects the individual worker. The absence of such a contract would be profound conservitism, especially since the contract overall hurts most companies (prevents the lay 'em off strategem of management).
If you mean liberal in the classical definition of liberal (bigger goverment controling more of your life to prevent the world from eating your children), again, no. The presence of such a contract (and laws requiring such phrasing) is an indication of liberal forces at work in your government. The absence of those clauses in US contracts indicates the presence of more conservitive (smaller government, states rights, Texas) elements in the US Government.
Not that it matters, but if you're going to be outraged or supprised or whatever, you should at least be all those things about something that's actualy there.
The buisness model is flawed in more ways than one.
First off lets look at the public relations side of it. That's the real debacle anyhow.
Take an example album, the soundtrack from Men In Black.
A friend of mine was rather taken with Will Smith's title track on the album and wanted to buy a single of it (owing in large part to the fact that the rest of the music on the soundtrack was beyond sucking and well into the swallowing zone).
Upon ariving at the mall record store (crossroads I think) he asked how he might go about buying such a single. The responce was amusing.
The record company did not wish to publish a single (usualy available for about 8 bucks) of Smith's title track because they knew it was the only track on the album worth buying. They instead forced those who wanted the track to pay $20 for it as part of an album they didn't want rather than allowing single sales.
I personaly can't count the number of times I've bought an album becaues a single track wasn't available for the track I wanted. The fact of the matter is that a good 70% of the music on most given CDs is crap. Its there for filler to justify the insane price inflation for the media.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fixed costs for making a CD are about equil to thoes of making a tape and that the marginal costs are actualy higher for magnetic tape medium. This then begs the question: "why am I paying 3 times more for this album on CD?"
The RIAA is utilizing its near monopolistic control of a vast market to change standards and preceptions, artificialy manipulating the prices of their products to better pad their pockets at the cost, both of consumer and market vitality.
The only difference between the RIAA's buisness practices and those of the famous monopolistic companies in history (US Steel, Standard Oil, Microsoft) is the fact that the RIAA is not a unified corporate entity, nor is it a trust. It is a formal agreement between ologopolistic (look it up) companies to control the market.
My question: why is a formal agreement to fix prices legal but a formal cornering of a market through hostile takeover and superior buisness practices/models is not? Corporate wellfare is supposed to give American buisness an advantage, not a crutch.
Actualy, form letters tend to carry less weight with Congresscriters than a personaly composed letter.
Think of it this way. If you're a Rep/Sen and I write you a letter that looks unique and self-composed it indicates that I was pissed off enough to take the time to put down my thoughts.
If I send you a form letter (and you'll know because you'll get 2000 like it) you know that I only cared enough to hit print, buy a stamp, and mail that sucker.
The former letter indicates an issue that a voter will remember and care about come November. The latter indicates something that will be forgotten by lunch time tomorow.
No, what we need is a very clever peral script or somesuch which will take a given form letter and make many minor alterations to it, thus giving a form letter blitz the appearance of a rapidly developing grass roots campaign. While Slashdot isn't home to all that many more articulate people than any other discussion board on Earth, it is home to many of the most technicaly savy people I can think of. Most of which have far to much spare time on their hands.
So I'm going to have to point this out... it's probably said elsewhere, but it needs to be said here too.
Many things are protected speech. Porn (for the most part) is protected.... at least insofar as the Court has refused to define obsenity in any real meaningfull sence. Justice Stone once said "I'll know obsenity when I see it" which more or less sums up our Judicial System's take on the issue.
That said there is a difference between what is protected and what is freely available. Playboy's pictures (nudes) are protected speach, but you can't buy a Playboy until you're 18.
Printing something is direct speech. It's a form of expression.
Buying something is indirect speech. Voting with your wallet if you will.
In order for Congress to restrict what you have the right to buy it must restrict your right to indirect speech. The Court (not court) has a test for this. It is known as the "compelling state interest test." The upshot of this is that the State must prove that it has a compelling reason to restrict this speech. If no such reason is proven the challenge fails and the law is overturned. It is one of the few cases wherein the DEFENDENT has the burden of proof (assuming the state is being sued for restricting my freedom of speech).
I want to make this clear because of the misleading nature of the title. A decision which limits what I can buy does not in any way make a ruling as to weather video games are or are not free speech. It simply states that a judge thought that the Government has a compelling reason to limit who can buy what.
That being said, the normitive upshot of all this is fairly simple. If a parrent wants their kid to play this game they can buy it for them. The force of law only prevents a child from going behind a parrents back and buying the game himself. There is little danger of some sort of governmental intrusion into anyone's life considering the allready curtailed freedoms allowed to minors in this country.
Most conceptions of orbital power stations rely on a mylar baloon of sorts used as a reflecting dish (think a sphere, half clear, half reflective... point the clear end at then sun and you've got a dish... well... kind of anyhow, more an elipse than a sphere)
Anyway, since this is space we're talking about and thus we're working in freefall, the entire collection array can simply be this balloon. This drasiticly cuts costs. Now all you have to do is beam it back.... these can be launched without human beings going up at all.
If we are to continue this debate, and if you persist in refusing to cite any credible evidence to support your point I shall do it for you.
A rather revisionist, and somewhat biased argument which agrees with your viewpoint is available here. I should point out a few serious flaws in this logic.
First is the assumption that the Japanese leadership wanted to ensure the continued reign of the Emperor. This is true, however what the argument fails to point out is that the Emperor's court, including military advisors, was also included in this request. In short, those directing the war effort desired to remain in control of the country. This is clearly unaccecptable.
The revisionist argument dismisses the possibility of the elimination of the Japanese military brach entirely as a solution for peace in Asia, contending that American influence in Asia was a destabilizing element. Nonetheless, most realist scholars would agree that a Bi-Polar system in the Asian theator would be inherantly more stable than a Hegemonic system [in this case dominated by the USSR].
By 1945 Truman had allready begun to searously fear Soviet expansion, not because of any problem he had with Stalin, but because of the danger of future intentions. That is to say, Truman worried about Stalin's successor, not Stalin himself. Should the USSR have taken the Japanese islands the Soviets would hold a position of complete military hegemony in the Pacific theator.
Another suggestion is the possibility of a test detonation, to prove to the Japanese that the Bomb worked and that we could use it. This, many argue would scare them into surrender. Besides being radicly inconsistant with the origional point, that is: the Japenese were ready to surrender allready, this assumes a large supply of bombs. While many revisionist historians will tell you that there were two bombs ready and many more on the way the fact of the matter is that the United States had 2 weapons, one on the way, and no forseeable production for several months in the future.
Washington allowed surrender with the continuation of the Emperor's reign on the condition that all military advisors step down, many to face trial. Remember that the emperor's power had been largely sequestered, and as many have pointed out, our cracking of the Purple code allowed us to more or less divine this.
If you are to point me in the direction of a history book please supply a reference. While WWII is not my speciality, I feel that my grasp of it is fairly solid, and significaly less influenced by "pop-history" than most. I will ask again, what evidence do you have to support your arguments? Much as I would like to trust your written word as gospel truth, I'm afraid that's asking a bit much
Normaly I dismiss AC posts as mindless tripe, but that one about silly revisionist bitching was right on.
I'd also be most interested to see a link or anything to this supposed evidence of yours indicating that Japan was just on the edge of their seats waiting for us to ask them to surrender so that they might throw down their arms and welcome US hegemony in the Pacific with open arms.
Anyone who thinks an indtustrialized nation in the process of teaching its women and children how to kill with pointy sticks as a method of defence is "on the brink of surrender" has another thing coming.
Japan, contrary to the rather misguided perceptions of the historicaly naive, was more or less in the grip of a throwback code of morality dictated by the military elements in the nation known as "Bushido." The word breaks into Bushi and Do meaning Warrior and Way, or more generaly, the way of the warrior.
Japan and the japanese were prepared to fight to the end. Estimates as to the K.I.A count (Killed in Action) for invading and holding the home islands of Japan ran well into the hundreds of thousands [US Troops only]. For your reference, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki combined killed a scant 105 thousand Japanese, well within the estimates for a home island invasion.
Was the US justified in droping the Atomic Bomb? Based on what we now know about the bomb's after affects, no. But that information was not available on August 6, 1945. You can not hold the military planners responcible for forces beyond their understanding or indeed anyone's understanding in this case.
Finaly, for comparitive purposes consider the casualtie estimates for the fire bombing attack on Tokyo -- 234,412, Dresden - 250,000 (high estimate). Japan lost some 107,539 soliders at the battle of Okinawa alone, burned out by flame throwers for the most part. US Army estimates put total Japanese losses for Okinawa at more than 140,000.
So was the atomic bombing really an act to scare the Soviets? Probably not. More importantly, Truman and Stalin got along wonderfully. Truman is often quoted discribing Stalin as "a man I can worth with." There was no need for Truman to frighten Stalin, indeed, Truman himself said that US posturing after WWII was not because of his fear of Stalin, but rather who would come after him.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just pointing out the problems in that statement of yours.
I was thinking more of an arcologie type setup. You've allread got the huge tower built. Anything that generates heat below the tower is a good thing. Turn the tower into the equivilent of a 1 km high sky scraper, fill it with apartments, cinemas, malls, etc as you suggested. Now take taht several kilometer skirt and use it as farm land. If heat is all you care about then using that land as a combination of parking lots and farm land will average out quite nicely and provide (hopefully) enough food to keep the inhabitants fairly self sustaining. Greenhouse conditions should extend the growing season somewhat as well.
Reguardless of your findings now (which I won't go into) did you ever question what you were getting in to? As a cancer survivor, I can't imagine someone being willing to take that first puff, try those first few smokes. "What harm can it do, I won't get hooked."
But what if you do get hooked? What if you're not one of the lucky ones? Are you willing to take the risk? That's what you're doing. You're taking that pack of Cammels and saying "I'm stronger than everyone else. I'm certain right here and now that I'm one of the lucky few who won't get hooked. I'm certain that someday I'll be able to quit. There is not a doubt in my mind"
If you start with any less than that total confidance than you're playing russian roulette. God help you if you're wrong. There will be some who end up lucky. I know a few. But speaking as someone who's been ther and done that. Someone who's sat in a hospital watching the poisons drip into my body which would supposedly cure this disease inside me, I can't say I'd be willing to take that risk. I've seen friends of mine, 12 year old kids, die in their parrents arms, struck down by a disease which you flirt with every day. I hope to God you know what you're doing.
Don't get me wrong. I wish you no ill. In a perfect world you'll never experiance a fit of coughing, never suffer a day of illness in your life for your vice (I refrain from "habbit" for obvious reasons). No one deserves the experiance of cancer. Not even those that seem to rush toward it headlong. At the same time, it's a risk you need not take.
Yes and no. I agree that NASA has contributed substantialy to the "space is for scientists" conception, largely to the detriment of the industry as a whole. Nonetheless, I think space tourism is a bit further out of site than you think. Consider the idea of a "space hotel"...
First off, no one goes on vacation to a hotel for the view. You need stuff to do there, so we expand the concept to a space resort. No big deal, just larger facilities, which as you pointed out, doesn't eactly effect rent costs.
That being said there's a plethora of considerations for a space resort. Most importat to them is staff. How many people does it take to run a hotel? You'll need those people at your space resort. Many of those people will have to be permanant staff, that means a HUGE space station. We're talking 11 kilometers across (ring shaped of course) to allow rotation and thus artificial gravity (wouldn't want those bones to deteriorate would we?).
Then there's the matter of providing food. It's not economicly feasable to ship food up there for any sort of serious commercial venture. So blue green alge it is. Now you've got to find ways to make this into something palletable, which isn't that hard (it's really good with Vodka, try some time).
Shielding is a problem too. Most plans include large bands of water storage tanks which ring the damn thing. That's where you grow the algee of course.
Overall my point is that a space based hotel whatever is more expensive precisely because it's not for science. A small facility operated on occasion can be left alone for a lot of the time and it doesn't matter. Supplies needed for habbitation can be transported to the station and consumed. It does not need to be a closed system.
A commercial hotel scheme must be a closed system. Space is energy rich and stuff poor. You need to make sure that no matter leaves the station. You also need to make sure the station is self sufficient. Part of making this profitable is having it ready to go whenever and keeping it running all the time. To do that you need the infrastrucuture to build an 11 kilometer ring spacestation.
That's a hell of a project, no matter who you are.
Damn. And I thought people were idiots for not reading the artical. Not you're not reading the comments you reply to?
I was talking about private ventures in space. I never said that it was unlikely to pay off, I said that the risks involved made it such that the payoff times the probibility of success were not sufficiently greater than the potential loss times the probibilty of failure. That's not all a corporation cares about. If there's an earthside venture which has better odds than the space side ones that's where the money will go.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with NASA. NASA (in case you forgot) is a government operated cost center (as opposed to a profit center). NASA seeks only to keep its costs below its budget. Either by lowering costs (bad) or increasing budget (good).
Because the objective of buisness is to maximize profit while minimizing risk. Space is risky, and while it may pay off, it's unlikely to.
Potential Profit x Prob of Profit > Potential Loss x Prob of Loss
That must evaluate to true for a company to realisticly consider doing something (it gets even uglier with present values etc thrown in, so think of it like that).
The result is that capitalism encourages firms to drink cautiously from the river of innovation rather than jumping in. It takes socilized capitalism (much like Japan) to encourage the sink or swim approach.
I've been impressed with Uplink but find that the game is not nearly so interesting as the various "secrets" built into the game. Check out the Misc directory on the CD. Gamebible.zip is worth a look.
Also... should you ever get the chance to play thermonuclear warfare, look behind your trace tracker for the close button... this sounds cryptic but you'll thank me later.
Analogies fail here though, because of the peculiar nature of intelectual property. While I'm not saying I agree with 3am up there (a sale is a sale... the change thing is something different and totaly unrelated) there is a fundamental difference between getting a five finger discount on a $3000 peice of jewlrey and pirating a $3000 peice of software. While you can make the argument that in both cases the company looses money, the argument is flawed. The company has infact only lost money if you, as a consumer, were sufficiently interested in the software as to purchase it for 3000 dollars.
In the case of Apple, even this distinction is not the case. If I install the Apple OS from the CD I bought from Apple I am simply using what I have legaly purchased. Apple can claim a loss (hypotheticly) but I have paied them for the right to install the software on that disk. This is predicated on my having a previous installation of their OS, but the question we need to ask is not the morality of this, but rather "does Apple have legal protection?"
I would argue no. They distributed the means to the cirucmvention of their own "copy protection." They knowingly distributed a full version of their OS under a different licence. The Courts are meant as a way of righting wrongs, not a recourse for stupidity. I would be supprised if a judge backed Apple on this.
So we're going to see "vote here before entering this site" screens on major websites now:-). Great... will it come with infinately looping pop-up XXX ads too?
Re:Things the visitor can do besides surf the web
on
Disney World Goes 802.11b
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
See, that's why I don't understand the resistance to making this technology available to customers. You charge an exhorbidant rental fee for one of these things, make sure it's well set up and easy to use and you're in buisness. It would be nice to have a way to tell when the line for space mountain is really short. I'd appreciate a searchable restaurant database with the ability to make reservations. Or howabout we sling a GPS device into it and let the damn thing give directions? If you've ever gotten lost in Disney world you know what I'm talking about.
Lots of people collect "character" autographs (yes really), it wouldn't be hard to have these devices tell you where characters are in the park. The commercial applications of this are simply astounding... the only reason I can think of for Disney not utilizing it is the fear of someone breaking the system. To me, that says the security is sub-par.
I assume we all agree that Bandwidth = Data/Time (for the sake of argument). The model is logical, but it's not be applied properly in your argument. Consider the following.
Joe has a 28.8 modem. He downloads 3 Megs a day (according to your model) and pays $1 a month. Not a bad deal for Joe, not a bad deal for the company either provided they don't have to give Joe tech support.
Now consider Jack. Jack has a DSL. He ALSO downloads 3MB per day, but he does so MUCH FASTER THAN JOE. That's the key. Jack has to pay for the speed at which he downloads. I.e. not just the data used, but the data possible as well.
So what you need is a multiplier effect. You don't pay for data based on the formula f(data) but rather on f'(data). That way you're covering the cost both of bandwidth and charging fairly.
I'm not sure about prior reference, but did RAH more or less invent CAD in "Door Into Summer?" Those drafting tables just seem like a concept sketch of a CAD program.
Slashdot Mirror
Nazi research on the Jews, specificly research pretaining to the effects of low presures and temperatures on the human body was the foundation of our space program (and our ability to develop the a space suit).
Japanese research into the effects of various viruses/bacterium on the human body in unit 731 (frequently considred a great deal more vicious than the Nazi research) yeilded results which the US would keep secret until the 1980s for use in our own biowarfare programs. (Hypotheticly ending in 1972).
This is to say nothing of more engineering related research done by the Nazis such as balistic rocketry (space program), jet engines, and hydrogen based power plants for submarines (precurser to the modern fuel cell? I'm not sure on that one).
To reply to a bunch of people. There's a lot of angles to this.
:-)
First off you don't allow this to get out of hand. A genetic defect could be built into such a bacterium (a virus isn't much good for eating oil)... say... an intolerance to a specific protein. Lace your oil with the protean save your supply. Either that or allow only X number of generations... I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure there's a way. This limits the amount of oil/whatever destroyed.
Option 2 of course is design a bacterium that only eats diesel fuel or gasoline. That saves the crude oil.
As for the qestion of how fast can you grow a peanut? 5 Months. In comparison to the several million years for oil to form that seems like a good deal.
Admittedly the destruction of the world oil reserves would suck tremendously. It would cause a period of inflation and other economic shock heretofor unheard of. But industrial civilization would survive.
The idea of producing a bacterium that eats ammunition is infnitely more entertaining anyhow. Especialy one that could convert things like high powered military exposives into something significanly less stable
I think we're missing the point here. If the state law says that below a certain age you can't purchace games of certain content below the age of 18 the case isn't a free speech case.
Well it is, but not really. The Court has held over and over again that the state has a compelling interest to regulate the symbolic speech of minors (voting with their wallets so to speek).
Because of this precident, the case is effectivly an interstate commerce case. That makes it a great deal more clear cut and simple.
Fundamentaly the same laws that prevent your 8 year old brother from buying a Penthouse prevent him from buying Quake III.
If this guy had ruled that it was illegal to sell Quake III in his state, period, that would be a free speech case.
In short I don't think that this case is as great a setback as this list seems to think it is. By overreacting to this I think the geek community (for lack of a better phrase) only demonstrates its poor grasp of our legal system and what it was intended to do.
There are upsides to all this too. Yes, your late model sports car is tracked at all times... which makes your movements pretty much public. At the same time, the same equipment that tracks your sports car can also allert police if you're in an accident, automaticly dispatching an ambulance (based on the delta V of the impact). The same network can determine instantly who you ran into, what lane they were in and what they were doing, and from that get a pretty good idea of who's at fault. State law is referenced and depending on the severity of damage (from a self diagnostic) the accident is reported to your insurance company who gets to work on the claim before you've even steped out of the car.
Me? I'm liking that system.
The money you spend, authenticated by its unique chip, drops the counterfiting rate substantialy. This stabilizes US currency and could have an overall beneficial effect in the long run (ok.. it's a long shot). As for tracking who had what monies where and what they were spent on... taxes get lots easier when there's never a recipt to keep. Everyone can do the long form and the short form in the same amount of time... lots of money spent... and saved.
This logic reminds me of two historical examples of this kind of phrasing.
During the 2nd World War the Brits informed the world that they were blocading Germany's ports. Under international law a blocade must be recognised only if the blocader has the wherewithall to enforce the blocade. The US decided that the UK had the ability to do so, even though the blocade was so laughably understaffed as to be nearly non-existant.
The same kind of language was used in the treaty of London (1600s). The treaty stated that a colony could only be said to belong to a foreign power if it had the ability to defend it.
The key to both of these is that they legaly protect only that which can protect itself. In one case (WWII) that ability is recognised where it does not exist. In the case of the Treaty of London, however, no such recognition was given. The question is why.
In the case of the second world war, the US and UK had a mutual interest in preventing a Nazi occupation of Europe. This mutual interest lead the US to recognise a British blocade which didn't exist.
In the case of the Treaty of London the various European powers were at each other's throats. Becuse competition was feirce there were no such favors done.
But how, you may ask, does this tie back to the origional conversation? The DMCA is yet another case of legislation which protects that which doesn't need protecting. Or rather, that which doesn't need protecting right now (thank you Moore's Law).
The danger lies in the possibility of mutualy acknowledeged interests between the record companies and.... who? Constitutionaly it's the roll of the judicial branch to interpret laws. Judges are supposed to be politicaly independent, or at least shielded.
Unfortunately this has been a bit more of a rant than I intended. There are three ways to deal with the DMCA. One is to overturn it in the Courts. This is possible only if those mutual interests don't exist. Another is to legislate it out of existance. Campaign contributions make that impossible... or at least difficult. Finaly there is the possibility of making it impossible to enforce. How that works is a bit over my head. We'll see....
This is obviously some definition of the word "liberal" with which I was not previously aquainted.
If you mean liberal in the tree huging, pot smoking, down with the Man and big corporations are taking over the planet sence.... no. That kind of contract, while it does protect buisnesses, also protects the individual worker. The absence of such a contract would be profound conservitism, especially since the contract overall hurts most companies (prevents the lay 'em off strategem of management).
If you mean liberal in the classical definition of liberal (bigger goverment controling more of your life to prevent the world from eating your children), again, no. The presence of such a contract (and laws requiring such phrasing) is an indication of liberal forces at work in your government. The absence of those clauses in US contracts indicates the presence of more conservitive (smaller government, states rights, Texas) elements in the US Government.
Not that it matters, but if you're going to be outraged or supprised or whatever, you should at least be all those things about something that's actualy there.
The buisness model is flawed in more ways than one.
First off lets look at the public relations side of it. That's the real debacle anyhow.
Take an example album, the soundtrack from Men In Black.
A friend of mine was rather taken with Will Smith's title track on the album and wanted to buy a single of it (owing in large part to the fact that the rest of the music on the soundtrack was beyond sucking and well into the swallowing zone).
Upon ariving at the mall record store (crossroads I think) he asked how he might go about buying such a single. The responce was amusing.
The record company did not wish to publish a single (usualy available for about 8 bucks) of Smith's title track because they knew it was the only track on the album worth buying. They instead forced those who wanted the track to pay $20 for it as part of an album they didn't want rather than allowing single sales.
I personaly can't count the number of times I've bought an album becaues a single track wasn't available for the track I wanted. The fact of the matter is that a good 70% of the music on most given CDs is crap. Its there for filler to justify the insane price inflation for the media.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fixed costs for making a CD are about equil to thoes of making a tape and that the marginal costs are actualy higher for magnetic tape medium. This then begs the question: "why am I paying 3 times more for this album on CD?"
The RIAA is utilizing its near monopolistic control of a vast market to change standards and preceptions, artificialy manipulating the prices of their products to better pad their pockets at the cost, both of consumer and market vitality.
The only difference between the RIAA's buisness practices and those of the famous monopolistic companies in history (US Steel, Standard Oil, Microsoft) is the fact that the RIAA is not a unified corporate entity, nor is it a trust. It is a formal agreement between ologopolistic (look it up) companies to control the market.
My question: why is a formal agreement to fix prices legal but a formal cornering of a market through hostile takeover and superior buisness practices/models is not? Corporate wellfare is supposed to give American buisness an advantage, not a crutch.
Actualy, form letters tend to carry less weight with Congresscriters than a personaly composed letter.
Think of it this way. If you're a Rep/Sen and I write you a letter that looks unique and self-composed it indicates that I was pissed off enough to take the time to put down my thoughts.
If I send you a form letter (and you'll know because you'll get 2000 like it) you know that I only cared enough to hit print, buy a stamp, and mail that sucker.
The former letter indicates an issue that a voter will remember and care about come November. The latter indicates something that will be forgotten by lunch time tomorow.
No, what we need is a very clever peral script or somesuch which will take a given form letter and make many minor alterations to it, thus giving a form letter blitz the appearance of a rapidly developing grass roots campaign. While Slashdot isn't home to all that many more articulate people than any other discussion board on Earth, it is home to many of the most technicaly savy people I can think of. Most of which have far to much spare time on their hands.
There's power here. Oh yes... power....
So I'm going to have to point this out... it's probably said elsewhere, but it needs to be said here too.
Many things are protected speech. Porn (for the most part) is protected.... at least insofar as the Court has refused to define obsenity in any real meaningfull sence. Justice Stone once said "I'll know obsenity when I see it" which more or less sums up our Judicial System's take on the issue.
That said there is a difference between what is protected and what is freely available. Playboy's pictures (nudes) are protected speach, but you can't buy a Playboy until you're 18.
Printing something is direct speech. It's a form of expression.
Buying something is indirect speech. Voting with your wallet if you will.
In order for Congress to restrict what you have the right to buy it must restrict your right to indirect speech. The Court (not court) has a test for this. It is known as the "compelling state interest test." The upshot of this is that the State must prove that it has a compelling reason to restrict this speech. If no such reason is proven the challenge fails and the law is overturned. It is one of the few cases wherein the DEFENDENT has the burden of proof (assuming the state is being sued for restricting my freedom of speech).
I want to make this clear because of the misleading nature of the title. A decision which limits what I can buy does not in any way make a ruling as to weather video games are or are not free speech. It simply states that a judge thought that the Government has a compelling reason to limit who can buy what.
That being said, the normitive upshot of all this is fairly simple. If a parrent wants their kid to play this game they can buy it for them. The force of law only prevents a child from going behind a parrents back and buying the game himself. There is little danger of some sort of governmental intrusion into anyone's life considering the allready curtailed freedoms allowed to minors in this country.
Most conceptions of orbital power stations rely on a mylar baloon of sorts used as a reflecting dish (think a sphere, half clear, half reflective... point the clear end at then sun and you've got a dish... well... kind of anyhow, more an elipse than a sphere)
Anyway, since this is space we're talking about and thus we're working in freefall, the entire collection array can simply be this balloon. This drasiticly cuts costs. Now all you have to do is beam it back.... these can be launched without human beings going up at all.
If we are to continue this debate, and if you persist in refusing to cite any credible evidence to support your point I shall do it for you.
A rather revisionist, and somewhat biased argument which agrees with your viewpoint is available here. I should point out a few serious flaws in this logic.
First is the assumption that the Japanese leadership wanted to ensure the continued reign of the Emperor. This is true, however what the argument fails to point out is that the Emperor's court, including military advisors, was also included in this request. In short, those directing the war effort desired to remain in control of the country. This is clearly unaccecptable.
The revisionist argument dismisses the possibility of the elimination of the Japanese military brach entirely as a solution for peace in Asia, contending that American influence in Asia was a destabilizing element. Nonetheless, most realist scholars would agree that a Bi-Polar system in the Asian theator would be inherantly more stable than a Hegemonic system [in this case dominated by the USSR].
By 1945 Truman had allready begun to searously fear Soviet expansion, not because of any problem he had with Stalin, but because of the danger of future intentions. That is to say, Truman worried about Stalin's successor, not Stalin himself. Should the USSR have taken the Japanese islands the Soviets would hold a position of complete military hegemony in the Pacific theator.
Another suggestion is the possibility of a test detonation, to prove to the Japanese that the Bomb worked and that we could use it. This, many argue would scare them into surrender. Besides being radicly inconsistant with the origional point, that is: the Japenese were ready to surrender allready, this assumes a large supply of bombs. While many revisionist historians will tell you that there were two bombs ready and many more on the way the fact of the matter is that the United States had 2 weapons, one on the way, and no forseeable production for several months in the future.
Washington allowed surrender with the continuation of the Emperor's reign on the condition that all military advisors step down, many to face trial. Remember that the emperor's power had been largely sequestered, and as many have pointed out, our cracking of the Purple code allowed us to more or less divine this.
If you are to point me in the direction of a history book please supply a reference. While WWII is not my speciality, I feel that my grasp of it is fairly solid, and significaly less influenced by "pop-history" than most. I will ask again, what evidence do you have to support your arguments? Much as I would like to trust your written word as gospel truth, I'm afraid that's asking a bit much
Normaly I dismiss AC posts as mindless tripe, but that one about silly revisionist bitching was right on.
I'd also be most interested to see a link or anything to this supposed evidence of yours indicating that Japan was just on the edge of their seats waiting for us to ask them to surrender so that they might throw down their arms and welcome US hegemony in the Pacific with open arms.
Anyone who thinks an indtustrialized nation in the process of teaching its women and children how to kill with pointy sticks as a method of defence is "on the brink of surrender" has another thing coming.
Japan, contrary to the rather misguided perceptions of the historicaly naive, was more or less in the grip of a throwback code of morality dictated by the military elements in the nation known as "Bushido." The word breaks into Bushi and Do meaning Warrior and Way, or more generaly, the way of the warrior.
Japan and the japanese were prepared to fight to the end. Estimates as to the K.I.A count (Killed in Action) for invading and holding the home islands of Japan ran well into the hundreds of thousands [US Troops only]. For your reference, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki combined killed a scant 105 thousand Japanese, well within the estimates for a home island invasion.
Was the US justified in droping the Atomic Bomb? Based on what we now know about the bomb's after affects, no. But that information was not available on August 6, 1945. You can not hold the military planners responcible for forces beyond their understanding or indeed anyone's understanding in this case.
Finaly, for comparitive purposes consider the casualtie estimates for the fire bombing attack on Tokyo -- 234,412, Dresden - 250,000 (high estimate). Japan lost some 107,539 soliders at the battle of Okinawa alone, burned out by flame throwers for the most part. US Army estimates put total Japanese losses for Okinawa at more than 140,000.
So was the atomic bombing really an act to scare the Soviets? Probably not. More importantly, Truman and Stalin got along wonderfully. Truman is often quoted discribing Stalin as "a man I can worth with." There was no need for Truman to frighten Stalin, indeed, Truman himself said that US posturing after WWII was not because of his fear of Stalin, but rather who would come after him.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just pointing out the problems in that statement of yours.
I was thinking more of an arcologie type setup. You've allread got the huge tower built. Anything that generates heat below the tower is a good thing. Turn the tower into the equivilent of a 1 km high sky scraper, fill it with apartments, cinemas, malls, etc as you suggested. Now take taht several kilometer skirt and use it as farm land. If heat is all you care about then using that land as a combination of parking lots and farm land will average out quite nicely and provide (hopefully) enough food to keep the inhabitants fairly self sustaining. Greenhouse conditions should extend the growing season somewhat as well.
Of course, I could be talking out of my ass
Reguardless of your findings now (which I won't go into) did you ever question what you were getting in to? As a cancer survivor, I can't imagine someone being willing to take that first puff, try those first few smokes. "What harm can it do, I won't get hooked."
But what if you do get hooked? What if you're not one of the lucky ones? Are you willing to take the risk? That's what you're doing. You're taking that pack of Cammels and saying "I'm stronger than everyone else. I'm certain right here and now that I'm one of the lucky few who won't get hooked. I'm certain that someday I'll be able to quit. There is not a doubt in my mind"
If you start with any less than that total confidance than you're playing russian roulette. God help you if you're wrong. There will be some who end up lucky. I know a few. But speaking as someone who's been ther and done that. Someone who's sat in a hospital watching the poisons drip into my body which would supposedly cure this disease inside me, I can't say I'd be willing to take that risk. I've seen friends of mine, 12 year old kids, die in their parrents arms, struck down by a disease which you flirt with every day. I hope to God you know what you're doing.
Don't get me wrong. I wish you no ill. In a perfect world you'll never experiance a fit of coughing, never suffer a day of illness in your life for your vice (I refrain from "habbit" for obvious reasons). No one deserves the experiance of cancer. Not even those that seem to rush toward it headlong. At the same time, it's a risk you need not take.
I hope you're right. I really do.
Yes and no. I agree that NASA has contributed substantialy to the "space is for scientists" conception, largely to the detriment of the industry as a whole. Nonetheless, I think space tourism is a bit further out of site than you think. Consider the idea of a "space hotel"...
First off, no one goes on vacation to a hotel for the view. You need stuff to do there, so we expand the concept to a space resort. No big deal, just larger facilities, which as you pointed out, doesn't eactly effect rent costs.
That being said there's a plethora of considerations for a space resort. Most importat to them is staff. How many people does it take to run a hotel? You'll need those people at your space resort. Many of those people will have to be permanant staff, that means a HUGE space station. We're talking 11 kilometers across (ring shaped of course) to allow rotation and thus artificial gravity (wouldn't want those bones to deteriorate would we?).
Then there's the matter of providing food. It's not economicly feasable to ship food up there for any sort of serious commercial venture. So blue green alge it is. Now you've got to find ways to make this into something palletable, which isn't that hard (it's really good with Vodka, try some time).
Shielding is a problem too. Most plans include large bands of water storage tanks which ring the damn thing. That's where you grow the algee of course.
Overall my point is that a space based hotel whatever is more expensive precisely because it's not for science. A small facility operated on occasion can be left alone for a lot of the time and it doesn't matter. Supplies needed for habbitation can be transported to the station and consumed. It does not need to be a closed system.
A commercial hotel scheme must be a closed system. Space is energy rich and stuff poor. You need to make sure that no matter leaves the station. You also need to make sure the station is self sufficient. Part of making this profitable is having it ready to go whenever and keeping it running all the time. To do that you need the infrastrucuture to build an 11 kilometer ring spacestation.
That's a hell of a project, no matter who you are.
Damn. And I thought people were idiots for not reading the artical. Not you're not reading the comments you reply to?
I was talking about private ventures in space. I never said that it was unlikely to pay off, I said that the risks involved made it such that the payoff times the probibility of success were not sufficiently greater than the potential loss times the probibilty of failure. That's not all a corporation cares about. If there's an earthside venture which has better odds than the space side ones that's where the money will go.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with NASA. NASA (in case you forgot) is a government operated cost center (as opposed to a profit center). NASA seeks only to keep its costs below its budget. Either by lowering costs (bad) or increasing budget (good).
Because the objective of buisness is to maximize profit while minimizing risk. Space is risky, and while it may pay off, it's unlikely to.
Potential Profit x Prob of Profit > Potential Loss x Prob of Loss
That must evaluate to true for a company to realisticly consider doing something (it gets even uglier with present values etc thrown in, so think of it like that).
The result is that capitalism encourages firms to drink cautiously from the river of innovation rather than jumping in. It takes socilized capitalism (much like Japan) to encourage the sink or swim approach.
I've been impressed with Uplink but find that the game is not nearly so interesting as the various "secrets" built into the game. Check out the Misc directory on the CD. Gamebible.zip is worth a look.
Also... should you ever get the chance to play thermonuclear warfare, look behind your trace tracker for the close button... this sounds cryptic but you'll thank me later.
Analogies fail here though, because of the peculiar nature of intelectual property. While I'm not saying I agree with 3am up there (a sale is a sale... the change thing is something different and totaly unrelated) there is a fundamental difference between getting a five finger discount on a $3000 peice of jewlrey and pirating a $3000 peice of software. While you can make the argument that in both cases the company looses money, the argument is flawed. The company has infact only lost money if you, as a consumer, were sufficiently interested in the software as to purchase it for 3000 dollars.
In the case of Apple, even this distinction is not the case. If I install the Apple OS from the CD I bought from Apple I am simply using what I have legaly purchased. Apple can claim a loss (hypotheticly) but I have paied them for the right to install the software on that disk. This is predicated on my having a previous installation of their OS, but the question we need to ask is not the morality of this, but rather "does Apple have legal protection?"
I would argue no. They distributed the means to the cirucmvention of their own "copy protection." They knowingly distributed a full version of their OS under a different licence. The Courts are meant as a way of righting wrongs, not a recourse for stupidity. I would be supprised if a judge backed Apple on this.
So we're going to see "vote here before entering this site" screens on major websites now :-). Great... will it come with infinately looping pop-up XXX ads too?
See, that's why I don't understand the resistance to making this technology available to customers. You charge an exhorbidant rental fee for one of these things, make sure it's well set up and easy to use and you're in buisness. It would be nice to have a way to tell when the line for space mountain is really short. I'd appreciate a searchable restaurant database with the ability to make reservations. Or howabout we sling a GPS device into it and let the damn thing give directions? If you've ever gotten lost in Disney world you know what I'm talking about.
Lots of people collect "character" autographs (yes really), it wouldn't be hard to have these devices tell you where characters are in the park. The commercial applications of this are simply astounding... the only reason I can think of for Disney not utilizing it is the fear of someone breaking the system. To me, that says the security is sub-par.
I assume we all agree that Bandwidth = Data/Time (for the sake of argument). The model is logical, but it's not be applied properly in your argument. Consider the following.
Joe has a 28.8 modem. He downloads 3 Megs a day (according to your model) and pays $1 a month. Not a bad deal for Joe, not a bad deal for the company either provided they don't have to give Joe tech support.
Now consider Jack. Jack has a DSL. He ALSO downloads 3MB per day, but he does so MUCH FASTER THAN JOE. That's the key. Jack has to pay for the speed at which he downloads. I.e. not just the data used, but the data possible as well.
So what you need is a multiplier effect. You don't pay for data based on the formula f(data) but rather on f'(data). That way you're covering the cost both of bandwidth and charging fairly.
I'm not sure about prior reference, but did RAH more or less invent CAD in "Door Into Summer?" Those drafting tables just seem like a concept sketch of a CAD program.
Asimov is generaly credited with the word Robotics, not Robot. Just FYI.