They absolutely do -not- fall under fair use. "Derivative works" the phrase of the discussion are the exclusive -right- of the copyright holder.
I do not have any right to produce a story about Hannibal Lecter, or Hannibal from the A-Team, or The Rock from WWE, because all of those characters were created by somebody, and their copyrights now owned (assuredly by somebody else).
It's not really THAT important, since live DJ performances are royalty-less works. Not that I remember why... but they are.
In other news, if you were to record the mix, it would be partially owned by the audience whose mental, and physical responses are interpretted in the machine responses, partly owned by whoever owned the AI box, and partly owned by the people who owned the tracks that were mixed in. That would be a legal nightmare without getting authorization to use your audience without them gaining ownership... and then making your AI box only use tracks from artists you already have deals with and stuff like that.
Anyway, the issue is less thorny than you are making it out to be.
Advertisers want one thing out of the publications they advertise more than anything else, do you know what that is?
Readers.
Favorable coverage comes a distant second.
The fact that bigger companies can steer coverage is a windfall for them, not a requirement for the publication. Publishers have kowtowed to advertisers, it happens, it's common. And it makes advertiser's happy, until that publication tanks.
If you want -good- biased coverage, you go to a publication that just has biased and shameless editors, like the LA Times in the 60's (it was a media spigot for the GOP). Because they're still interested in their readers, and producing something that has value to the readers.
You want -bad- biased coverage you go to somebody who is looking to score bonus points with some advertiser, because they're going about things backwards in the first place.
Let me repeat, with some refinements I thought up as I was writing here...
-Smart- advertisers want their ads to be seen, and choose publications that put their adverts onto the eyes/ears of their target demographic.
It is a pure bonus to the Marketing department of those companies if they can control editorial content with the threat (made or implicit) of taking advertising dollars to other publications.
As a side note, somebody else already mentioned this, but Car & Driver has always seemed to me to be a fairly upright publication. Partly because they have a large readership and a very broad base of potential advertisers (how many different companies that manufacture spark-plugs want advert space in C&D?).
So they're an 11th hour investment corporation? *gasp*
God forbid that companies with potential, get bought or invested in when they absolutely postively need it most. If those floundering companies weren't bought, they would probably fail, and whatever "important" or "interesting" thing they were doing, wouldn't get done.
Some "audiophiles" are doing it out of technolust, or just competitiveness. Most of them really fail to get systems that sound good enough to justify the activity.
The dead give-away are the ones that buy miles of really good cable.
Listening room design is miles more important that vibration reduction, or electricity cleanliness. Not just speaker ORIENTATION (which is, admittedly vital), but minimizing cable lengths. The less actual cable (of any quality) you have running from home-base with your stack of electronics, around the room to your speakers the better your sound will be. (This is a million times more true in cities than in rural areas, but it's still true there...)
Anyhow, in other news, Bose isn't "high end" equipment, but they are technological marvels, they produce miraculous sound for the size of their speakers, but a good pair of Infinities (still normal consumer grade equip) will sound better than most Bose stuff... they will however look less "cool" (well, less like a Yuppie's sound equipment).
Re:Audiophiles are *worse* than drug addicts
on
Insanely Audiophile
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about the rest of you, but I laughed my ass off at this comment
Now to figure out why this is modded up as "insightful" instead of funny....
The modern US military has noticed that red light makes red lines dissappear from maps, and starting making maps that don't have red lines... wow, genius, isn't it? So now, at night, you use your red flashlights even while reading a map, because in a firefight, your night-vision is proportional to your likliehood of living. The US military cares too.
with an auger (sp?) break it up into relative small dustlike powder, and then you've got the old screw-in-cylinder... hold the screw at constant height, and twist, and the powder comes to the top.
Well, a significant amount of wood is used for paper, and building... the former we, as a race, have a habit of burying... some people suggest tapping those buried plots for burnable fuel (which would release C02) but that's not a common practice yet, so we can just go ahead and leave that stuff buried... except of course the ENVIRONEMNTALISTS kept begging everybody to compost, and plow the dump-sites to accelerate bio-degradation... (oopsie for them)
Personally, I figure the answer is using atmospheric C02 to create comestibles, which will feed bionengineered organisms (or just bioengineer plants) that produce long-lasting desirable products. I can't wait until the first goat based spider-silk factory is built or when agribusiness is harvesting nylon instead of cotton. I mean... when we can start growing diamond semi-conductors... we're gonna be hurting for carbon aren't we?
Umm, is this a facetious post of some sort? *shrug* maybe I just don't get it Or maybe you didn't figure out what a placebo was before posting... *shrug again*
I saw these 8 years ago
on
Flywheel UPS
·
· Score: 1
There are a lot of posts about the age of this technology already, I just wanted to mention that around 8 years ago I saw a much smaller version in a hospital.
At the time there weren't that many mission critical computers (something like 10, and then a billion monitors and whatnot, that wouldn't choke at the temporary outage until the generators started). The generator they used was about waist-high and about 3 feet by 2 feet.
(some funny stuff, but there appears to be some serious stuff too, to which I'm responding)
Many of you are against encrypting digital television signals because of some ephemeral notion of your "natural right" to fair use, as though fair use weren't an artifact of positive law (passed by Congress) in another act of positive law (copyright law itself). But let's assume for a moment that you're correct, that there is a fundamental right here that's being abused by the industry. I'll grant you that, if you think it'll help your case. But it won't, and I'll tell you why.
Fair use is a limiatation on a government granted monopoly. Current law has -GIVEN- people the right to content they produce. John Locke says it's appropriate, I essentially agree, but the RIGHTs to copyrighted material are GRANTED by the government, not a natural extension of property law. That the Government chooses to limit that GRANT is indicitive of the Government's responsibility to it's citizenry, and what they feel is appropriate
Then you admit that the view of science as the destroyer and enemy of God is a valid and possibly true proposition.
(This is simple-restatement of my previous comment.) Science -is- a detail of free-will. Free-will is upheld by God, even though God punishes people who exercise their free will to certain ends. (i.e. Free will=upheld regardless, punishment may still ensue, and that does not impugn God's continued support of free-will)
(In response) No, I don't. I admit the possibility that scientists may act in ways abhorrent to God. But there has never been any biblical indication that the any act of science is abhorrent to God ANY MORE. In Eden, knowing right from wrong (an act of science) was reserved for God. Mankind claimed that power as their own. God punished man for that, then set man into the world knowing they would continue to perform acts of science or die. I can not accept that God expelled man from Eden with the expectation that man should choose death (to please him) and simultaneously presented man with the command to be fruitful and multiply.
While the rhetoric of this post is certainly a little harsh, there is a nugget (heck, a chunk of ore) in what he is saying. Science has always been about disproving God. Even when scientists claimed to be finding the hand of God in his handiwork as Kepler and Copernicus did, nothing more did they do than attempt to wrest God's power away from Him.
Pt. 1, I believe you are trolling
Ignoring that I have pt 2.
If you wish to take the view that the fall from Eden is reversible by deliberate ignorance, I certainly cannot convince you otherwise. I don't intend this as a personal attack, but from such a standpoint I doubt any level of discussion can convince you, since logic is one of the ultimate expressions of the forbidden knowledge of the difference between "right and wrong". That too, notwithstanding, I put forth that in the hostile environment God put man in following the fall (the world outside of Eden) mankind had two choices, use knowledge, understanding, science, technology and ingenuity, or cease. I personally believe the former to be the correct decision.
Any standpoint that the latter is the only justifiable choice rests on the assumption that God wished Adam and Eve dead, but wanted them to extinguish themselves, and provides further opportunity to defy him by giving them the ability to birth children.
You may say "God gave man another choice, righteous death, or sinful continuation". But I say that is wholly unreasonable. And if you reply "God isn't subject to reason" I say that the knowledge derived from science and reason is not God's power, but some small detail of man's free will, and out right to exercise our will has been upheld by God, even if he reserves the right to punish those who choose to act in ways that offend him.
The summary answer is "Just because you feel cheated, doesn't mean you are."
In the case of employment, you might not want to put yourself on the barrell of "pay up or I leave" if standard practices in the industry are not to pay up, if you still think it's unacceptable (which is understandable) even when it's common, your exit interview would sound more like "I wasn't really interested in the field, and needed to move on" rather than "My last employer was " and I didn't want to put up with it" Whether or not it's common should only barely rate for whether or not you find it acceptable, but it -should- rate HIGHLY in how you talk about it to relevant people (your current employer, people you interview with next, etc) and it should also rate highly in what jobs you look for next.
In the Girlfriend case, it makes sense to see how other boys are treated before you make a public ordeal about what a bitch your girlfriend is.
A lot of people have already mentioned that advertisers are chasing click-thru, which is ridiculous, there's no reason to ever have expected -any- click-thru, other than the fact that it's POSSIBLE with the internet.
The main reason I never click on ads is that I don't trust the advertiser. If an ad does NOT have a company name (and most don't) I'm not going to click on it, I don't want to waste MY time with some hack company who muscled together enough money to pay doubleclick.
Ads that have drawn my clicks, Demotivators, Think Geek, Rackspace
Maybe I've just spent too much time porn surfing, and have become callused to "blind clicks" because if I don't know where I'm going to end up on the far side of a link, I don't PUNCH it. (reiterate "PERIOD")
However, in a greed-centered capitalist, corporatist economy, should one company make hemp paper of equivalent quality and lower price, the corporations would be required by SEC and corporate law to use it in preference because it enhances shareholder value...(this is over-simplified, of course, most specifically, the "damage" that COULD (but probably wouldn't) be done to a corporation's image by using hemp)
The problem with a corporation is that if a moral portion of a corporation decides to do something morally superior with inferior profitability, the enactor is likely to be removed from their position within the corporation, or the corporation is likely to be dissolved.
The US SEC does -not- allow publically held corporations to make any decision which reduces profitability. If you declare from the outset that your intent is profit, you aren't allowed to change your mind, for any reason, unless you can personally cover the profit margins (by purchasing the bits of the corporation that you wish to wield for other purposes, which it is illegal for the corporation to sell you, unless it's the "correct" profitable decision for the corporation).
Otherwise I agree with you, Corporations aren't evil, just single-minded. Though it's worth noting that I partially agree with Rusty that groups of people need to pick up the slack for human behaviors that corporations and capitalism don't cover, (but I don't agree that those corporations and capitalists are wrong for doing what they do)
This was my primary GRIPE with the article. The US Constitution was inherently supportive of a capitalist economy. Yes, that leaning was edited out of the Declaration of Independence, but it's still in the Constitution (Copyright law? yes thankyou, I'll take two of them). Capitalism is imperfect (I don't believe that satisfying human desires is the end-all be all of the human condition (Rand to the Contrary)) but it is not criticized in the Declaration of Independence.
Well, there was that, and trying to merge the imperfection of a greed based society (which a perfect Capitalist community would be) with a mythical evil of property rights. Rusty draws a very workable argument about where greed as the final goal leads to dangerous social circumstances, but proceeds to use that as an indictment of strong property rights, which I think is foolish. Granting strong property rights is not the same as promoting the accumulation of property as the final goal of all humans.
They aren't contradictory, at WORST they are orthogonal. I would accept a comment that capitalist and libertarian are orthogonal (The Israeli Kibbutz, as an example of free-will leading to a (/n internally) non-capitalist society). But they are certainly not contradictory.
Capitalism calls for an organization of property be free trade
Libertarianism calls for an organization of law by a minimally active governance.
I would wager that the number of self-declared libertarians who do not believe that capitalism is the appropriate way to distribute wealth and property are rare (say, less than 1%)
Very beside the point... but I'm just amused at how much of the article is consumed by the normal "we released this article, we're going to tail our personal statement" (standard stuff for PR Newswires, except the SIZE...
Here, I've quoted it for you
-------
NAI Labs is an industry leading security research organization with
100 dedicated researchers in four research facilities throughout the
United States and is a founding member of the Security Research Alliance.
NAI Labs is a multi-discipline research organization with world-renowned
expertise in the areas of network security, applied cryptographic
technologies, secure execution environments, security infrastructure, adaptive
network defenses, distributed systems security, and information assurance. In
addition to its prominent role in the security research community, all
unclassified network and cryptographic research is shared with Network
Associates' product development and support organizations to enable superior
solutions for Network Associates customers.
PGP Security, a Network Associates company, is a worldwide leader in
products and services focusing on solving privacy and data confidentiality
issues, and has a strong history of setting security industry standards.
PGP Security's breadth of security products, including firewall, encryption,
intrusion detection, risk assessment and VPN technologies, address the full
range of security and privacy issues, anywhere information is transmitted or
stored. PGP Security's products secure over seven million users and include
several of the industry's well-known security brands, including Gauntlet
Firewall and VPN, PGP Data Security, CyberCop Scanner, and PGP e-ppliances.
PGP Security's COVERT research team identifies and works to resolve serious
vulnerabilities before attackers are able to exploit them. The findings are
incorporated into the product offerings, ensuring protection from the latest
vulnerabilities. For more information and software evaluations, visit
http://www.pgp.com .
About Network Associates
With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc. is a
leading supplier of security and availability solutions for e-businesses.
Network Associates is comprised of four business units: McAfee, delivering
world class anti-virus products; PGP Security, providing firewall, intrusion
detection and encryption products; Sniffer Technologies, a leader in network
and application management; and Magic Solutions, providing web-based service
desk solutions. For more information, Network Associates can be reached at
972-308-9960 or on the Internet at http://www.nai.com.
NOTE: Network Associates, PGP, McAfee, Sniffer, Magic Solutions,
Gauntlet, CyberCop and CyberCop Scanner are registered trademarks of
Network Associates, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and/or other
countries. All other registered and unregistered trademarks in this document
are the sole property of their respective owners.
IANANE (I am not a Network Engineer):)
Slightly offtopic too...
However, in my office environment, I was brought aboard a LAN reconfigure, and have had remarkable luck/utility with WinRoute running (unsuprisingly) on a WinNT box.
The most important caveat I have to offer is that this is -not- an enormously high traffic network. Up to 30 users doing varyingly high bandwith things (through a T1 running out of the office) *shrug*
Like most Win apps, it was designed for ease of use, which I appreciated because I'm not a network engineer (just a guy with a little experience with TCP/IP) but it runs stably and seems adequately configurable, and from a purely second-hand commentary, NT has a multi-threaded TCP/IP stack, unlike (at least older) Linux... (this is not something I have ever payed close enough attention to, to notice)
1) I said "unelightened (term my own) to indicate that I was applying the word in a novel way, sorry for the ambiguity
2) what I mean by "meta-movie" is a sort of underlying communicative impact within the same movie... if you were to describe the "movie" it would be "Neo dodged several bullets in the matrix" but the meta-movie there is "a hacker was superhuman in the computerized environment". This is an abnormal application of the "meta" prefix, derived from the more normal application of meta to communication, not to mean "talking about talking", but to mean, "communicating concepts by talking not inherent in the denotative meaning of the sentence" (things like why somebody would say something)... so instead of "meta-Movie" I probably should have said, the "meta-communication in the movie" but that didn't occur to me at the time
The facts are
no patent/copyright => less innovation
study economics, figure out how public goods and research costs interact, such that a government founded on the concepts of the free market decided to add patent and copyright laws to the constitution... granting temporary monopoly's ENCOURAGES innovation, not "allows for" but ENCOURAGES.
An employee of a company that invents something may not get the royalties, but they still get a paycheck, and the company wouldn't be paying as many paychecks in the R&D department unless they expected their temporary monopoly. Just because the inventor doesn't own the invention doesn't change the basic operation of economics.
Slashdot Mirror
They absolutely do -not- fall under fair use. "Derivative works" the phrase of the discussion are the exclusive -right- of the copyright holder.
I do not have any right to produce a story about Hannibal Lecter, or Hannibal from the A-Team, or The Rock from WWE, because all of those characters were created by somebody, and their copyrights now owned (assuredly by somebody else).
It's not really THAT important, since live DJ performances are royalty-less works. Not that I remember why... but they are.
In other news, if you were to record the mix, it would be partially owned by the audience whose mental, and physical responses are interpretted in the machine responses, partly owned by whoever owned the AI box, and partly owned by the people who owned the tracks that were mixed in. That would be a legal nightmare without getting authorization to use your audience without them gaining ownership... and then making your AI box only use tracks from artists you already have deals with and stuff like that.
Anyway, the issue is less thorny than you are making it out to be.
SLR
Advertisers want one thing out of the publications they advertise more than anything else, do you know what that is?
Readers.
Favorable coverage comes a distant second.
The fact that bigger companies can steer coverage is a windfall for them, not a requirement for the publication. Publishers have kowtowed to advertisers, it happens, it's common. And it makes advertiser's happy, until that publication tanks.
If you want -good- biased coverage, you go to a publication that just has biased and shameless editors, like the LA Times in the 60's (it was a media spigot for the GOP). Because they're still interested in their readers, and producing something that has value to the readers.
You want -bad- biased coverage you go to somebody who is looking to score bonus points with some advertiser, because they're going about things backwards in the first place.
Let me repeat, with some refinements I thought up as I was writing here...
-Smart- advertisers want their ads to be seen, and choose publications that put their adverts onto the eyes/ears of their target demographic.
It is a pure bonus to the Marketing department of those companies if they can control editorial content with the threat (made or implicit) of taking advertising dollars to other publications.
As a side note, somebody else already mentioned this, but Car & Driver has always seemed to me to be a fairly upright publication. Partly because they have a large readership and a very broad base of potential advertisers (how many different companies that manufacture spark-plugs want advert space in C&D?).
So they're an 11th hour investment corporation? *gasp*
God forbid that companies with potential, get bought or invested in when they absolutely postively need it most. If those floundering companies weren't bought, they would probably fail, and whatever "important" or "interesting" thing they were doing, wouldn't get done.
Is that a good thing? I doubt it.
Some "audiophiles" are doing it out of technolust, or just competitiveness. Most of them really fail to get systems that sound good enough to justify the activity.
The dead give-away are the ones that buy miles of really good cable.
Listening room design is miles more important that vibration reduction, or electricity cleanliness. Not just speaker ORIENTATION (which is, admittedly vital), but minimizing cable lengths. The less actual cable (of any quality) you have running from home-base with your stack of electronics, around the room to your speakers the better your sound will be.
(This is a million times more true in cities than in rural areas, but it's still true there...)
Anyhow, in other news, Bose isn't "high end" equipment, but they are technological marvels, they produce miraculous sound for the size of their speakers, but a good pair of Infinities (still normal consumer grade equip) will sound better than most Bose stuff... they will however look less "cool" (well, less like a Yuppie's sound equipment).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I laughed my ass off at this comment
Now to figure out why this is modded up as "insightful" instead of funny....
Actually, that's old FASHIONED
The modern US military has noticed that red light makes red lines dissappear from maps, and starting making maps that don't have red lines... wow, genius, isn't it? So now, at night, you use your red flashlights even while reading a map, because in a firefight, your night-vision is proportional to your likliehood of living. The US military cares too.
with an auger (sp?) break it up into relative small dustlike powder, and then you've got the old screw-in-cylinder... hold the screw at constant height, and twist, and the powder comes to the top.
Well, a significant amount of wood is used for paper, and building... the former we, as a race, have a habit of burying... some people suggest tapping those buried plots for burnable fuel (which would release C02) but that's not a common practice yet, so we can just go ahead and leave that stuff buried... except of course the ENVIRONEMNTALISTS kept begging everybody to compost, and plow the dump-sites to accelerate bio-degradation... (oopsie for them)
Personally, I figure the answer is using atmospheric C02 to create comestibles, which will feed bionengineered organisms (or just bioengineer plants) that produce long-lasting desirable products. I can't wait until the first goat based spider-silk factory is built or when agribusiness is harvesting nylon instead of cotton. I mean... when we can start growing diamond semi-conductors... we're gonna be hurting for carbon aren't we?
Mindlessly optomistically yours
Umm, is this a facetious post of some sort?
*shrug* maybe I just don't get it
Or maybe you didn't figure out what a placebo was before posting... *shrug again*
There are a lot of posts about the age of this technology already, I just wanted to mention that around 8 years ago I saw a much smaller version in a hospital.
At the time there weren't that many mission critical computers (something like 10, and then a billion monitors and whatnot, that wouldn't choke at the temporary outage until the generators started). The generator they used was about waist-high and about 3 feet by 2 feet.
(some funny stuff, but there appears to be some serious stuff too, to which I'm responding)
Many of you are against encrypting digital television signals because of some ephemeral notion of your "natural right" to fair use, as though fair use weren't an artifact of positive law (passed by Congress) in another act of positive law (copyright law itself). But let's assume for a moment that you're correct, that there is a fundamental right here that's being abused by the industry. I'll grant you that, if you think it'll help your case. But it won't, and I'll tell you why.
Fair use is a limiatation on a government granted monopoly. Current law has -GIVEN- people the right to content they produce. John Locke says it's appropriate, I essentially agree, but the RIGHTs to copyrighted material are GRANTED by the government, not a natural extension of property law. That the Government chooses to limit that GRANT is indicitive of the Government's responsibility to it's citizenry, and what they feel is appropriate
Then you admit that the view of science as the destroyer and enemy of God is a valid and possibly true proposition.
(This is simple-restatement of my previous comment.) Science -is- a detail of free-will. Free-will is upheld by God, even though God punishes people who exercise their free will to certain ends. (i.e. Free will=upheld regardless, punishment may still ensue, and that does not impugn God's continued support of free-will)
(In response) No, I don't. I admit the possibility that scientists may act in ways abhorrent to God. But there has never been any biblical indication that the any act of science is abhorrent to God ANY MORE. In Eden, knowing right from wrong (an act of science) was reserved for God. Mankind claimed that power as their own. God punished man for that, then set man into the world knowing they would continue to perform acts of science or die. I can not accept that God expelled man from Eden with the expectation that man should choose death (to please him) and simultaneously presented man with the command to be fruitful and multiply.
While the rhetoric of this post is certainly a little harsh, there is a nugget (heck, a chunk of ore) in what he is saying. Science has always been about disproving God. Even when scientists claimed to be finding the hand of God in his handiwork as Kepler and Copernicus did, nothing more did they do than attempt to wrest God's power away from Him.
Pt. 1, I believe you are trolling
Ignoring that I have pt 2.
If you wish to take the view that the fall from Eden is reversible by deliberate ignorance, I certainly cannot convince you otherwise. I don't intend this as a personal attack, but from such a standpoint I doubt any level of discussion can convince you, since logic is one of the ultimate expressions of the forbidden knowledge of the difference between "right and wrong". That too, notwithstanding, I put forth that in the hostile environment God put man in following the fall (the world outside of Eden) mankind had two choices, use knowledge, understanding, science, technology and ingenuity, or cease. I personally believe the former to be the correct decision.
Any standpoint that the latter is the only justifiable choice rests on the assumption that God wished Adam and Eve dead, but wanted them to extinguish themselves, and provides further opportunity to defy him by giving them the ability to birth children.
You may say "God gave man another choice, righteous death, or sinful continuation". But I say that is wholly unreasonable. And if you reply "God isn't subject to reason" I say that the knowledge derived from science and reason is not God's power, but some small detail of man's free will, and out right to exercise our will has been upheld by God, even if he reserves the right to punish those who choose to act in ways that offend him.
The summary answer is "Just because you feel cheated, doesn't mean you are."
In the case of employment, you might not want to put yourself on the barrell of "pay up or I leave" if standard practices in the industry are not to pay up, if you still think it's unacceptable (which is understandable) even when it's common, your exit interview would sound more like "I wasn't really interested in the field, and needed to move on" rather than "My last employer was " and I didn't want to put up with it"
Whether or not it's common should only barely rate for whether or not you find it acceptable, but it -should- rate HIGHLY in how you talk about it to relevant people (your current employer, people you interview with next, etc) and it should also rate highly in what jobs you look for next.
In the Girlfriend case, it makes sense to see how other boys are treated before you make a public ordeal about what a bitch your girlfriend is.
A lot of people have already mentioned that advertisers are chasing click-thru, which is ridiculous, there's no reason to ever have expected -any- click-thru, other than the fact that it's POSSIBLE with the internet.
The main reason I never click on ads is that I don't trust the advertiser. If an ad does NOT have a company name (and most don't) I'm not going to click on it, I don't want to waste MY time with some hack company who muscled together enough money to pay doubleclick.
Ads that have drawn my clicks, Demotivators, Think Geek, Rackspace
Maybe I've just spent too much time porn surfing, and have become callused to "blind clicks" because if I don't know where I'm going to end up on the far side of a link, I don't PUNCH it. (reiterate "PERIOD")
However, in a greed-centered capitalist, corporatist economy, should one company make hemp paper of equivalent quality and lower price, the corporations would be required by SEC and corporate law to use it in preference because it enhances shareholder value...(this is over-simplified, of course, most specifically, the "damage" that COULD (but probably wouldn't) be done to a corporation's image by using hemp)
The problem with a corporation is that if a moral portion of a corporation decides to do something morally superior with inferior profitability, the enactor is likely to be removed from their position within the corporation, or the corporation is likely to be dissolved.
The US SEC does -not- allow publically held corporations to make any decision which reduces profitability. If you declare from the outset that your intent is profit, you aren't allowed to change your mind, for any reason, unless you can personally cover the profit margins (by purchasing the bits of the corporation that you wish to wield for other purposes, which it is illegal for the corporation to sell you, unless it's the "correct" profitable decision for the corporation).
Otherwise I agree with you, Corporations aren't evil, just single-minded.
Though it's worth noting that I partially agree with Rusty that groups of people need to pick up the slack for human behaviors that corporations and capitalism don't cover, (but I don't agree that those corporations and capitalists are wrong for doing what they do)
This was my primary GRIPE with the article. The US Constitution was inherently supportive of a capitalist economy. Yes, that leaning was edited out of the Declaration of Independence, but it's still in the Constitution (Copyright law? yes thankyou, I'll take two of them).
Capitalism is imperfect (I don't believe that satisfying human desires is the end-all be all of the human condition (Rand to the Contrary)) but it is not criticized in the Declaration of Independence.
Well, there was that, and trying to merge the imperfection of a greed based society (which a perfect Capitalist community would be) with a mythical evil of property rights.
Rusty draws a very workable argument about where greed as the final goal leads to dangerous social circumstances, but proceeds to use that as an indictment of strong property rights, which I think is foolish. Granting strong property rights is not the same as promoting the accumulation of property as the final goal of all humans.
They aren't contradictory, at WORST they are orthogonal. I would accept a comment that capitalist and libertarian are orthogonal (The Israeli Kibbutz, as an example of free-will leading to a (/n internally) non-capitalist society). But they are certainly not contradictory.
Capitalism calls for an organization of property be free trade
Libertarianism calls for an organization of law by a minimally active governance.
I would wager that the number of self-declared libertarians who do not believe that capitalism is the appropriate way to distribute wealth and property are rare (say, less than 1%)
Very beside the point... but I'm just amused at how much of the article is consumed by the normal "we released this article, we're going to tail our personal statement" (standard stuff for PR Newswires, except the SIZE...
.
Here, I've quoted it for you
-------
NAI Labs is an industry leading security research organization with 100 dedicated researchers in four research facilities throughout the United States and is a founding member of the Security Research Alliance. NAI Labs is a multi-discipline research organization with world-renowned expertise in the areas of network security, applied cryptographic technologies, secure execution environments, security infrastructure, adaptive network defenses, distributed systems security, and information assurance. In addition to its prominent role in the security research community, all unclassified network and cryptographic research is shared with Network Associates' product development and support organizations to enable superior solutions for Network Associates customers.
PGP Security, a Network Associates company, is a worldwide leader in products and services focusing on solving privacy and data confidentiality issues, and has a strong history of setting security industry standards. PGP Security's breadth of security products, including firewall, encryption, intrusion detection, risk assessment and VPN technologies, address the full range of security and privacy issues, anywhere information is transmitted or stored. PGP Security's products secure over seven million users and include several of the industry's well-known security brands, including Gauntlet Firewall and VPN, PGP Data Security, CyberCop Scanner, and PGP e-ppliances. PGP Security's COVERT research team identifies and works to resolve serious vulnerabilities before attackers are able to exploit them. The findings are incorporated into the product offerings, ensuring protection from the latest vulnerabilities. For more information and software evaluations, visit http://www.pgp.com .
About Network Associates
With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc. is a leading supplier of security and availability solutions for e-businesses. Network Associates is comprised of four business units: McAfee, delivering world class anti-virus products; PGP Security, providing firewall, intrusion detection and encryption products; Sniffer Technologies, a leader in network and application management; and Magic Solutions, providing web-based service desk solutions. For more information, Network Associates can be reached at 972-308-9960 or on the Internet at http://www.nai.com
NOTE: Network Associates, PGP, McAfee, Sniffer, Magic Solutions, Gauntlet, CyberCop and CyberCop Scanner are registered trademarks of Network Associates, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. All other registered and unregistered trademarks in this document are the sole property of their respective owners.
IANANE (I am not a Network Engineer) :)
Slightly offtopic too...
However, in my office environment, I was brought aboard a LAN reconfigure, and have had remarkable luck/utility with WinRoute running (unsuprisingly) on a WinNT box.
The most important caveat I have to offer is that this is -not- an enormously high traffic network. Up to 30 users doing varyingly high bandwith things (through a T1 running out of the office) *shrug*
Like most Win apps, it was designed for ease of use, which I appreciated because I'm not a network engineer (just a guy with a little experience with TCP/IP) but it runs stably and seems adequately configurable, and from a purely second-hand commentary, NT has a multi-threaded TCP/IP stack, unlike (at least older) Linux... (this is not something I have ever payed close enough attention to, to notice)
of course YMMV
wooHoo! Hacker Neo fails! Wooooww that's impressive.
1) I said "unelightened (term my own) to indicate that I was applying the word in a novel way, sorry for the ambiguity
2) what I mean by "meta-movie" is a sort of underlying communicative impact within the same movie... if you were to describe the "movie" it would be "Neo dodged several bullets in the matrix" but the meta-movie there is "a hacker was superhuman in the computerized environment". This is an abnormal application of the "meta" prefix, derived from the more normal application of meta to communication, not to mean "talking about talking", but to mean, "communicating concepts by talking not inherent in the denotative meaning of the sentence" (things like why somebody would say something)... so instead of "meta-Movie" I probably should have said, the "meta-communication in the movie" but that didn't occur to me at the time
Not
No patent/copyright => No innovation
The facts are
no patent/copyright => less innovation
study economics, figure out how public goods and research costs interact, such that a government founded on the concepts of the free market decided to add patent and copyright laws to the constitution... granting temporary monopoly's ENCOURAGES innovation, not "allows for" but ENCOURAGES.
An employee of a company that invents something may not get the royalties, but they still get a paycheck, and the company wouldn't be paying as many paychecks in the R&D department unless they expected their temporary monopoly. Just because the inventor doesn't own the invention doesn't change the basic operation of economics.