You could at least let the monitor go off. It saves a lot of power (especially when the air conditioning is on), and it only takes about 3 seconds for mine to come back on after I move the mouse. Powering-down the HD is more problematic; aside from the recovery time, it shortens the life of the drive, and making new drives takes energy too! HD's don't take that much power (can you feel the heat -- not much), so I don't think it's worthwhile unless you can ensure no more than one on/off cycle a day. Finally, a CPU slowdown (not halt) can save some power without incurring any noticeable recovery time. But a lot of the motherboards won't do it. Some will drop the box off the LAN if you allow even monitor shutdown.
Basic problem is, most power management was designed to meet a government fiat (Energy Star, etc.) rather than to actually save the computer owners money. The government's happy because half-assed power management schemes meet their regs, the customers are OK because it takes 5 seconds to turn it off permanently, and they don't care about the wasted power because it's priced very, very low. If you made the cost of electricity reflect the environmental costs of running the power plant, maybe people would be more interested. But in CA, the retail cost of electricity doesn't even reflect the wholesale cost!
Chain the legislators to generator/bikes and whip them until they make up the shortage. OK, I know they can't do that, but if you whip hard enough they'll die trying.....
1) The President and Congress do not have the power to make a treaty that violates the Constitution.
2) As I understand it, the worst provisions of the WIPO were put in at the insistence of the corporate whores representing the US, and the DMCA goes well beyond that.
5. You tell someone where a key salesman is, where to find a book on locksmithing, or where to find a group discussing keys.
There are people doing 10 years in Leavenworth just for telling the wrong person (a federal narc) where to find a particular kind of salesman... I disagree with those laws too, but you aren't going to get the courts to declare them unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds.
"If you start accepting their money, they've already started exerting control over you." Have you looked at the IRS requirements for a church to get a tax exemption? Giving churches a tax exemption gives government the power to say what a church is, and IMO that's already too much power. I'd tax the church itself as an entertainment business and exempt church charities on the same rules as other charities.
Trademarks are things that identify a business, and they are and should be good as long as the business exists and uses them. But trademarks give the holder substantially less rights than copyrights. They don't even have to be exclusive (Sun Oil, Sun Computers, etc.). The only thing a trademark really does is prevent others from using it fraudulently to mis-represent themselves as associated with the trademark holders business. The Mickey Mouse trademark doesn't prevent anyone from making cartoons with a similar, (but not identical) mouse, with a different name. The Mickey Mouse copyright might, depending on how similar the mouse was...
"Gee, what if he gets sick" or dies leaving dependent children? That's what disability and life insurance is for. The rest of us have to buy that (or get it through employment), why should authors and artists be different?
By the way, writing is one profession that you can practice from a hospital bed. When the late great Robert A Heinlein started writing, he was flat on his back and had just received a medical discharge from the Navy.
That was a mis-interpretation. The e-book said "cannot read aloud". As some Brit pointed out the first time this was posted on Slashdot (weeks ago), this is not the same as "may not read aloud." (You'd think those Brits invented English or something.;) What was really meant was that the e-book would not work with the speech synthesis program included in the reader, not that using speech synthesis or reading it to your kid was a copyright violation. I don't know if this was a deliberately locked out feature or if the book simply lacked the underlying data required by the speech synthesis. In the first case, I certainly hope that they would make it easy for the visually impaired to get the key to unlock it -- otherwise I would support a lawsuit. But the second case is pretty likely, too; if the book was scanned in, it's probably images rather than text, so the data to run the synthesizer simply isn't there, and doing an accurate image to text conversion currently requires a lot of proof reading.
Interesting suggestions. You guys have done some thinking. For all the difference in details, we do agree that getting and keeping copyrights should be more difficult than at present, and that life + 75 years is too long for a copyright to run.
Filing with the Library of Congress required for copyright: That seems like a good suggestion to me. As I understand it, in present law it's copyrighted from the minute you write it until you do something to put it in the public domain. (Does this web site have a policy such that posting here makes it public domain?) This leads to difficulties in determining if something is copyrighted, who owns it, and possibly if it does wind up in court it might be questionable even what the original work was. I think that automatic copyright should run only 6 months from first publication; after that, if you haven't filed for copyright, it's public domain. And filing must include giving a copy to the Library of Congress. WITH NO COPY PROTECTION! This ensures the original is preserved in case of a question, and it ensures that after the copyright has run out the work will be available to the public.
Initial fees: should be as low as possible and still pay the expenses of processing the registration.
Terms and renewals: I like the idea of making renewals costly. I don't like making the terms as long as 25 years, or allowing a 75 year total. To get back to the Constitutional clause authorizing copyrights, they are to encourage innovation, not to create future windfall profits for some corporation that happened to buy up the copyright. Many people might decide to write a book or not depending on whether they get paid in the next few years. Some might also hope to later get a fat check from Hollywood. No one is going to base his decision on whether he might be able to collect on re-prints in 30 years. (I use books as the example because the best ones do remain marketable forever, unlike all software and most movies.)
So I would suggest a maximum of three terms and steeply rising costs, 5 years for $10, 20 years for $1,000, 15 years for $100,000. After 40 years, even The Wizard of Oz should be public domain.
And finally, I do think that if it's off the market for more than two years, it should be public domain. No allowing corporations to just sit on something for decades, neither using it or allowing others to use it. (Maybe running The Wizard of Oz on network TV annually should count as keeping it in publication?)
If a book isn't selling well enough to stay in the bookstores but you are worried about movie rights later, you can keep it in "publication" by posting it on a web site with a notice like, "This is a copyrighted work owned by (name) at (address). You may download it for your own use, print a single copy, and distribute electronic copies as long as this notice is preserved. All rights for commercial publication and derivative works are reserved."
I agree with that, when you bought a physical object and you lose it, you don't have the right to a free replacement. But the software industry (and now the MPAA) are claiming that you didn't actually buy that disk, you just bought a license to play it. So losing the disk doesn't mean anything -- you've still got that license. Microsoft better mail out a replacement right now, or they are interfering in your enjoyment of your own property. Right?
Yep, that's ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the corpo-rats wanting to switch freely between the "license" model and the "physical property" model depending on which way will extort more money from their customers.
10 years is too short sometimes (as with movie rights to books), and rather long for other things (software which is obsolete in 2 years). The present law, life of the author + 75 years is utterly too long (and probably unconstitutional, besides).
I would suggest that copyright per se expire in 25 years, or 2 years after the item is removed from the market. The items can be freely copied after that. However, the author should keep some rights to control derivative works for life -- so turning a book into a movie, for example, requires the permission of the author.
"Wouldn't it be somewhat easier to just burn some of the Californians." Yes, and that would reduce the electricity demand, also -- which is the only thing that will actually help, other than building new plants...
As for the Florida morons -- I don't think that people who forbade increasing production capacity, fixed the retail price, took restrictions off the wholesale price, and called this "deregulation" should be commenting negatively on the intelligence of others.
If you just publish your idea, you don't get to sue anyone. You've got to apply for a patent, otherwise publishing (or going into production) just puts it into the public domain.
As for getting sued -- if you searched the existing patents properly, you'd know if someone already had a patent on it, and you wouldn't have gone into production unless (1) you are a thief, or (2) you think the patent is invalid. The one problem (at least in the US) is that you can't search the applications that are pending. So if someone got to the idea first and applied for a patent, and then you get the same idea and go into production before the patent office acted on the first patent, there is going to be a problem. You aren't liable for infringement before the patent issued, but once it is patented you do have to stop production or negotiate licensing, which might mean you are out of business. So I think at least part of patent applications need to be published...
"What if the Wright brothers had patented their flying machine?" I think they did. What they couldn't patent was every possible flying machine, or even all of those that worked better than the Wright Flyer. There was "prior art" -- a lot of designs which had never been built, some that didn't get off the ground, and most significantly, some that flew once and crashed hard. Which left doubts as to whether it was the design that was at fault, or just that piloting isn't something you learn on the job... (The Flyer went into a tailspin and crashed on it's first flight, too, but because the Wright's were so finicking cautious it wasn't high enough or fast enough to break much -- and next day it was back in the air with a brand new rudder to prevent tail-spins. Try patenting "be very, very careful" as a business method...) But even the total flops would count from a prior art standpoint as far as blocking other people from claiming whatever small parts of the design turned out to be useful later. So a broad patent claim would have been tossed out due to prior art. The exact configuration of the Flyer was patentable, but it didn't matter -- the next model looked a whole lot different and worked better, and no one could guess what a good airplane was going to be like in enough detail for a pre-emptive patent.
What I really like is that they put a bounty on their own business methods patent -- and it's been closed (bounty paid)!http://www.bountyquest.com/bounties/displayB ounty.php?bountyName=1026
IANAL, but as I understand it, the Claims are the key part -- if the patent examiner was doing his job, the claims should have been trimmed down to cover just what is novel and non-obvious. The diagrams and description are supporting to the claims, that is they show that you actually have a way of doing what is claimed.
Finally, the Abstract (the text right at the beginning of the patent) doesn't mean much of anything legally. It cannot be changed after the patent is filed. So you could write an Abstract claiming you invented indexing, with 200 ridiculously broad claims. After a proper patent examination, maybe you'd have a half-dozen narrow claims to particular techniques of indexing left -- that is, you really did invent something, but anyone who can find different ways of doing those few things can write a non-infringing indexer. But you've still got that ridiculous Abstract -- and you might have corporate management using it to attract investment, and lawyers waving it around to try to scare off competitors that didn't read the whole thing.
Patents are definitely necessary so the guys that really did invent something can get paid for it. The problems are (1) the incentives given to patent examiners are to process the patents fast and not get into long battles with the corps, not to do a real examination. (2) There is no cost to the corps in submitting overly broad claims, no cost in threatening others with them, and relatively little cost (as big corps count it) in actually going to court. I don't see a way to reverse the bureaucratic incentives, but we certainly could make it costly to submit overly broad claims, and even more costly to attempt to use them against competitors:
1) We need a technically trained court to judge things like this.
2) Abstracts must truly summarize the claims, and they are published as soon as the patent application is submitted. Anyone can send in a notice of prior art. These notices will be kept, so no one can later on claim they didn't know about the prior art.
3) PTO gets $1,000 for every claim rejected or modified. The inventor can take them to court, but if he loses, he pays for the PTO lawyers and costs.
4) Upon issuance or publication of a patent, others can file suit to void the patent or some of the claims. Loser pays all costs. The court may also order punitive damages if the claims are egregiously unfounded.
5) Sending out threatening letters is cause for a harrassment lawsuit, unless the letter cites specific violations of specific claims in the patent, and is ready to defend those claims in court (see #4).
6) Patent infringement lawsuits likewise go by loser pays.
is to cover his or her rear. Deny a questionable patent, they get sued. Approve it, companies sue each other, but the PTO isn't in court. The incentives are f*d up.
Patents are intended to cover "black-box concepts" to a considerable extent, that is, they will cover a particular way of solving a particular problem and also any variants that use parts of the invention. But they don't cover anything that was prior art or obvious to people knowledgeable in the field, and that's the problem with many patents now.
In the US, you've got one or two years after the invention is put into use or "published" to apply for a patent. After that, it's public domain. In many other countries, you've got to put in your patent application first or it's public domain.
Old example -- I read about this in the 60's: Arthur C Clarke first proposed communications satellites in a SciFi story in 1945. No question about his priority. Also no question that he can't get a patent; it was ten years before rockets capable of putting a satellite up there were developed, and a few more years before they actually did.
"completely secure. Until someone found out what the tones were..." As I recall, you could hear those tones as your call was forwarded on through the system. So record them, look at the recording with a scope, whip up a little sequencing circuit... Maybe it was reasonably secure in vacuum tube days (anyone who could make a portable circuit with vacuum tubes had better things to be doing), but by 1971 it was wide open.
"He was robbed on a Texas highway where he lost a notebook computer containing the only copy of his autobiography."
I might be persuaded to hire someone with past criminal tendencies (he ought to be good at security -- if he remembers which side he's on), but forgetting to keep backups is really inviting disaster.;)
'...Mr. Baggett said. "He played a huge role in the early days of the personal computer industry, and it's a crime he hasn't been able to reap the rewards."'
So anything emitting a 2600 Hz whistle could kick the long distance network into "free calling" mode. While I don't condone theft, isn't this like leaving your car window down 1/2 inch and jewelry on the dash?
Slashdot Mirror
You could at least let the monitor go off. It saves a lot of power (especially when the air conditioning is on), and it only takes about 3 seconds for mine to come back on after I move the mouse. Powering-down the HD is more problematic; aside from the recovery time, it shortens the life of the drive, and making new drives takes energy too! HD's don't take that much power (can you feel the heat -- not much), so I don't think it's worthwhile unless you can ensure no more than one on/off cycle a day. Finally, a CPU slowdown (not halt) can save some power without incurring any noticeable recovery time. But a lot of the motherboards won't do it. Some will drop the box off the LAN if you allow even monitor shutdown.
Basic problem is, most power management was designed to meet a government fiat (Energy Star, etc.) rather than to actually save the computer owners money. The government's happy because half-assed power management schemes meet their regs, the customers are OK because it takes 5 seconds to turn it off permanently, and they don't care about the wasted power because it's priced very, very low. If you made the cost of electricity reflect the environmental costs of running the power plant, maybe people would be more interested. But in CA, the retail cost of electricity doesn't even reflect the wholesale cost!
Chain the legislators to generator/bikes and whip them until they make up the shortage. OK, I know they can't do that, but if you whip hard enough they'll die trying.....
"Before that a "coke" was a nickel" Is that where the phrase "nickel bags" originated? ;)
1) The President and Congress do not have the power to make a treaty that violates the Constitution.
2) As I understand it, the worst provisions of the WIPO were put in at the insistence of the corporate whores representing the US, and the DMCA goes well beyond that.
Actually, the court decision sounds more like:
5. You tell someone where a key salesman is, where to find a book on locksmithing, or where to find a group discussing keys.
There are people doing 10 years in Leavenworth just for telling the wrong person (a federal narc) where to find a particular kind of salesman... I disagree with those laws too, but you aren't going to get the courts to declare them unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds.
"If you start accepting their money, they've already started exerting control over you." Have you looked at the IRS requirements for a church to get a tax exemption? Giving churches a tax exemption gives government the power to say what a church is, and IMO that's already too much power. I'd tax the church itself as an entertainment business and exempt church charities on the same rules as other charities.
Trademarks are things that identify a business, and they are and should be good as long as the business exists and uses them. But trademarks give the holder substantially less rights than copyrights. They don't even have to be exclusive (Sun Oil, Sun Computers, etc.). The only thing a trademark really does is prevent others from using it fraudulently to mis-represent themselves as associated with the trademark holders business. The Mickey Mouse trademark doesn't prevent anyone from making cartoons with a similar, (but not identical) mouse, with a different name. The Mickey Mouse copyright might, depending on how similar the mouse was...
"Gee, what if he gets sick" or dies leaving dependent children? That's what disability and life insurance is for. The rest of us have to buy that (or get it through employment), why should authors and artists be different?
By the way, writing is one profession that you can practice from a hospital bed. When the late great Robert A Heinlein started writing, he was flat on his back and had just received a medical discharge from the Navy.
I like what the ACLU said about links. They are "just digital footnotes." A very apt description.
That was a mis-interpretation. The e-book said "cannot read aloud". As some Brit pointed out the first time this was posted on Slashdot (weeks ago), this is not the same as "may not read aloud." (You'd think those Brits invented English or something. ;) What was really meant was that the e-book would not work with the speech synthesis program included in the reader, not that using speech synthesis or reading it to your kid was a copyright violation. I don't know if this was a deliberately locked out feature or if the book simply lacked the underlying data required by the speech synthesis. In the first case, I certainly hope that they would make it easy for the visually impaired to get the key to unlock it -- otherwise I would support a lawsuit. But the second case is pretty likely, too; if the book was scanned in, it's probably images rather than text, so the data to run the synthesizer simply isn't there, and doing an accurate image to text conversion currently requires a lot of proof reading.
Interesting suggestions. You guys have done some thinking. For all the difference in details, we do agree that getting and keeping copyrights should be more difficult than at present, and that life + 75 years is too long for a copyright to run.
Filing with the Library of Congress required for copyright: That seems like a good suggestion to me. As I understand it, in present law it's copyrighted from the minute you write it until you do something to put it in the public domain. (Does this web site have a policy such that posting here makes it public domain?) This leads to difficulties in determining if something is copyrighted, who owns it, and possibly if it does wind up in court it might be questionable even what the original work was. I think that automatic copyright should run only 6 months from first publication; after that, if you haven't filed for copyright, it's public domain. And filing must include giving a copy to the Library of Congress. WITH NO COPY PROTECTION! This ensures the original is preserved in case of a question, and it ensures that after the copyright has run out the work will be available to the public.
Initial fees: should be as low as possible and still pay the expenses of processing the registration.
Terms and renewals: I like the idea of making renewals costly. I don't like making the terms as long as 25 years, or allowing a 75 year total. To get back to the Constitutional clause authorizing copyrights, they are to encourage innovation, not to create future windfall profits for some corporation that happened to buy up the copyright. Many people might decide to write a book or not depending on whether they get paid in the next few years. Some might also hope to later get a fat check from Hollywood. No one is going to base his decision on whether he might be able to collect on re-prints in 30 years. (I use books as the example because the best ones do remain marketable forever, unlike all software and most movies.)
So I would suggest a maximum of three terms and steeply rising costs, 5 years for $10, 20 years for $1,000, 15 years for $100,000. After 40 years, even The Wizard of Oz should be public domain.
And finally, I do think that if it's off the market for more than two years, it should be public domain. No allowing corporations to just sit on something for decades, neither using it or allowing others to use it. (Maybe running The Wizard of Oz on network TV annually should count as keeping it in publication?)
If a book isn't selling well enough to stay in the bookstores but you are worried about movie rights later, you can keep it in "publication" by posting it on a web site with a notice like, "This is a copyrighted work owned by (name) at (address). You may download it for your own use, print a single copy, and distribute electronic copies as long as this notice is preserved. All rights for commercial publication and derivative works are reserved."
I agree with that, when you bought a physical object and you lose it, you don't have the right to a free replacement. But the software industry (and now the MPAA) are claiming that you didn't actually buy that disk, you just bought a license to play it. So losing the disk doesn't mean anything -- you've still got that license. Microsoft better mail out a replacement right now, or they are interfering in your enjoyment of your own property. Right?
Yep, that's ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the corpo-rats wanting to switch freely between the "license" model and the "physical property" model depending on which way will extort more money from their customers.
10 years is too short sometimes (as with movie rights to books), and rather long for other things (software which is obsolete in 2 years). The present law, life of the author + 75 years is utterly too long (and probably unconstitutional, besides).
I would suggest that copyright per se expire in 25 years, or 2 years after the item is removed from the market. The items can be freely copied after that. However, the author should keep some rights to control derivative works for life -- so turning a book into a movie, for example, requires the permission of the author.
"Wouldn't it be somewhat easier to just burn some of the Californians." Yes, and that would reduce the electricity demand, also -- which is the only thing that will actually help, other than building new plants...
As for the Florida morons -- I don't think that people who forbade increasing production capacity, fixed the retail price, took restrictions off the wholesale price, and called this "deregulation" should be commenting negatively on the intelligence of others.
If you just publish your idea, you don't get to sue anyone. You've got to apply for a patent, otherwise publishing (or going into production) just puts it into the public domain.
As for getting sued -- if you searched the existing patents properly, you'd know if someone already had a patent on it, and you wouldn't have gone into production unless (1) you are a thief, or (2) you think the patent is invalid. The one problem (at least in the US) is that you can't search the applications that are pending. So if someone got to the idea first and applied for a patent, and then you get the same idea and go into production before the patent office acted on the first patent, there is going to be a problem. You aren't liable for infringement before the patent issued, but once it is patented you do have to stop production or negotiate licensing, which might mean you are out of business. So I think at least part of patent applications need to be published...
"What if the Wright brothers had patented their flying machine?" I think they did. What they couldn't patent was every possible flying machine, or even all of those that worked better than the Wright Flyer. There was "prior art" -- a lot of designs which had never been built, some that didn't get off the ground, and most significantly, some that flew once and crashed hard. Which left doubts as to whether it was the design that was at fault, or just that piloting isn't something you learn on the job... (The Flyer went into a tailspin and crashed on it's first flight, too, but because the Wright's were so finicking cautious it wasn't high enough or fast enough to break much -- and next day it was back in the air with a brand new rudder to prevent tail-spins. Try patenting "be very, very careful" as a business method...) But even the total flops would count from a prior art standpoint as far as blocking other people from claiming whatever small parts of the design turned out to be useful later. So a broad patent claim would have been tossed out due to prior art. The exact configuration of the Flyer was patentable, but it didn't matter -- the next model looked a whole lot different and worked better, and no one could guess what a good airplane was going to be like in enough detail for a pre-emptive patent.
What I really like is that they put a bounty on their own business methods patent -- and it's been closed (bounty paid)!http://www.bountyquest.com/bounties/displayB ounty.php?bountyName=1026
Do "things different, like using HTTP instead of FTP." By this argument, someone could have patented the process of cutting Formica using a wood saw.
IANAL, but as I understand it, the Claims are the key part -- if the patent examiner was doing his job, the claims should have been trimmed down to cover just what is novel and non-obvious. The diagrams and description are supporting to the claims, that is they show that you actually have a way of doing what is claimed.
Finally, the Abstract (the text right at the beginning of the patent) doesn't mean much of anything legally. It cannot be changed after the patent is filed. So you could write an Abstract claiming you invented indexing, with 200 ridiculously broad claims. After a proper patent examination, maybe you'd have a half-dozen narrow claims to particular techniques of indexing left -- that is, you really did invent something, but anyone who can find different ways of doing those few things can write a non-infringing indexer. But you've still got that ridiculous Abstract -- and you might have corporate management using it to attract investment, and lawyers waving it around to try to scare off competitors that didn't read the whole thing.
Patents are definitely necessary so the guys that really did invent something can get paid for it. The problems are (1) the incentives given to patent examiners are to process the patents fast and not get into long battles with the corps, not to do a real examination. (2) There is no cost to the corps in submitting overly broad claims, no cost in threatening others with them, and relatively little cost (as big corps count it) in actually going to court. I don't see a way to reverse the bureaucratic incentives, but we certainly could make it costly to submit overly broad claims, and even more costly to attempt to use them against competitors:
1) We need a technically trained court to judge things like this.
2) Abstracts must truly summarize the claims, and they are published as soon as the patent application is submitted. Anyone can send in a notice of prior art. These notices will be kept, so no one can later on claim they didn't know about the prior art.
3) PTO gets $1,000 for every claim rejected or modified. The inventor can take them to court, but if he loses, he pays for the PTO lawyers and costs.
4) Upon issuance or publication of a patent, others can file suit to void the patent or some of the claims. Loser pays all costs. The court may also order punitive damages if the claims are egregiously unfounded.
5) Sending out threatening letters is cause for a harrassment lawsuit, unless the letter cites specific violations of specific claims in the patent, and is ready to defend those claims in court (see #4).
6) Patent infringement lawsuits likewise go by loser pays.
is to cover his or her rear. Deny a questionable patent, they get sued. Approve it, companies sue each other, but the PTO isn't in court. The incentives are f*d up.
Patents are intended to cover "black-box concepts" to a considerable extent, that is, they will cover a particular way of solving a particular problem and also any variants that use parts of the invention. But they don't cover anything that was prior art or obvious to people knowledgeable in the field, and that's the problem with many patents now.
In the US, you've got one or two years after the invention is put into use or "published" to apply for a patent. After that, it's public domain. In many other countries, you've got to put in your patent application first or it's public domain.
Old example -- I read about this in the 60's: Arthur C Clarke first proposed communications satellites in a SciFi story in 1945. No question about his priority. Also no question that he can't get a patent; it was ten years before rockets capable of putting a satellite up there were developed, and a few more years before they actually did.
"completely secure. Until someone found out what the tones were..." As I recall, you could hear those tones as your call was forwarded on through the system. So record them, look at the recording with a scope, whip up a little sequencing circuit... Maybe it was reasonably secure in vacuum tube days (anyone who could make a portable circuit with vacuum tubes had better things to be doing), but by 1971 it was wide open.
"He was robbed on a Texas highway where he lost a notebook computer containing the only copy of his autobiography."
;)
I might be persuaded to hire someone with past criminal tendencies (he ought to be good at security -- if he remembers which side he's on), but forgetting to keep backups is really inviting disaster.
'...Mr. Baggett said. "He played a huge role in the early days of the personal computer industry, and it's a crime he hasn't been able to reap the rewards."'
Need I say more?
So anything emitting a 2600 Hz whistle could kick the long distance network into "free calling" mode. While I don't condone theft, isn't this like leaving your car window down 1/2 inch and jewelry on the dash?
Make that "possibly somewhat into the 20th century"