The answer is increased productivity, temporary displacement of workers, commoditization of services that were formerly rendered by humans. People go on living.
All this FUD about AI is very silly. How does the world still easily support 7B+ people when people seriously talked about the need to depopulate the earth in the 1970â(TM)s? Technological progress in agriculture. How will the world still have jobs for 8-9B+ people when AI has âoetaken overâ? Technological progress to increase the job productivity of every individual human thanks to AI.
My 10 month old son is recovering from a bone marrow transplant. We LIVE in the hospital. We were in a room recently that had a wireless repeater with a bright blue LED. Nothing contributes more to a less sleepful night for a baby (and a parent who sleeps in the room with him) than that single point of annoying light on the ceiling.
Seems to me an old school fuse type device that trips when the access point loses power or signal would make more sense than those stupid LED lights.
I love this!
The "science is god" crowd always loves to cry foul when anyone claims that there are fundamental absolutes about morality, existence, and rationality because, well, obviously we don't know everything. But when science fiction *possibilities* (not probabilities, but possibilities - and in this case, rather far-fetched ones) are taken to task, they want to cry foul again. So which is it, atheists/evolutionists/agnostics? Do we have ANY reasonable, rational basis to believe that information CAN be transmitted faster than light? (Cluetrain: The answer is NO!) Do we have any reasonable, rational basis to disprove God's existence either? (Cluetrain: no, you don't... perhaps you can't prove His existence, but you also can't disprove His existence, either, on purely material grounds.)
BTW, The General Theory of Relativity *refined* Newton's theories; it didn't blow it away and make it null and void.
Dropbox is a great "access anywhere" secure solution across all major OS platforms, and using KeePass is a great software (as many have already mentioned) for managing all the different passwords you have. Upload KeePass - the executable and the database - to Dropbox, keep your master password verification file that KeePass creates for you on the computers you use and a USB key drive, and you will be very safe and secure, but unhindered by being tied to a particular OS or physical media. When you use dozens of different password-only websites, multiple network logins at work, and your own home computer password apps, it becomes imperative to manage it all in some sane way. The only way to do this for me before was a USB key + TrueCrypt + KeePass, but with Dropbox you eliminate the physical media to be lost accidentally. (And I thought a while back that I HAD lost my USB key, and I literally started freaking out before finding it on my car floor. Switched to Dropbox later that night, and no more freak-out sessions for me.)
del.icio.us has plugins for IE, Firefox, and there is a less useful third-party plugin for Safari which make it easy to "sync" your bookmarks across computers, so I use that for my browser synchronization. TrueCrypt keeps my really important data (passwords, resume, other sensitive personally identifiable info) safe and secure on my USB drive. My USB stick on my keychain holds a copy of TrueCrypt to boot from directly when you plug it into a USB port (you need admin authority on the computer you're using to use this feature though), and then some other miscellaneous documents I wouldn't want to lose but aren't sensitive sit on my USB stick in generic folders. And lastly, my iPod holds a copy of all of the music I care to not lose. (My wife and I also have a 750GB backup drive attached to our iMac at home to keep all of our media files, like photos and video, backed up)
Everything else is either done "in the cloud" online for us, or is proprietary or sensitive data that shouldn't be getting moved off of the primary computer it is on anyway.
I downloaded one of the reports from this AV testing company/lab. Yeah, their report used Courier New throughout. Seriously, it's not that hard to just use the default Times New Roman or Arial fonts for reports. I don't expect perfection in presentation, but to intentionally choose a difficult-to-read font because it's what programmers use on the command line reeks of annoying.
P.S. I'm ALL FOR Creative Commons and open source type copyright for the individual, but in those systems I maintain ownership of the content I created while requiring (by law) that others make note of my original authorship of that content. I'm just concerned that a site like Wikipedia blurs the line far too much between who owns what - content, editorial control, facts, truth, etc.
In a very broad sense, this is why socialism doesn't work at the political or financial level, and we are only now beginning to better understand why. The web is much closer to our everyday experience than politics and the financial system are for most of us. We see in Wikipedia why Communism was such a huge failure in Russia. Eventually the corrupt bend the rules, take the reigns that some well-meaning individuals gladly gave up in the name of "helping others", and it ultimately results in a backwards system of disinformation and unintended consequences that benefit the few and punish the many even more than in a more competitive system like a free market economy or a multi-tiered political system. Neither communism or socialism or capitalism or a democratic republic are free of negatives, but it is the communist and socialist systems that are so much more susceptible to corruption.
Wikipedia is susceptible to corruption. When Jimmy Wales moves on, I can almost bet money that the next 'owner' of Wikipedia will find more ways to quickly monetize the content myself and thousands (millions?) of others have provided to benefit themselves and their immediate cadre of editors/admins to the exclusion of the rest of us who created the value and power of what they now control.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
Children (and I mean anyone under the age of say... 16?) with access to pr0n who then learn how to talk to strangers on the Internet who are paedophiles that then want to meet the child, can indeed be a life or death situation for the child. My argument that it can be likened to giving a child a gun WITHOUT PROPER INSTRUCTION is not completely stupid. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you were just saving time by not quoting my entire sentence rather than actually having misunderstood the differences between simply having a gun, and knowing how to use it in a responsible manner.)
Besides, your view of the long-term impacts of pr0n is a chink in your armor: You assume that pornography does no mental or psychological damage to a child, and therefore it is completely different and not a relevant comparison of the physical damage done to oneself by wrecking a car or firing a gun. On this we clearly disagree.
And it was the parent post's intent to draw the correlation (albeit in a roundabout manner) to how the child would view the parent in their love/hate for them: "if you want your children to regard you with the same warm affection we give the RIAA, this is definitely the way to go about it." So my argument about the motivations behind parental controls and the RIAA's controls still stands.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
Kids eventually learn enough to be sneaky enough to hide things from their parents, that is true, but comparing parental controls to financial protectionism by the RIAA is not a good analogy. Parental controls are designed (usually) out of love and concern for the lifelong well-being of the child - they are selfless in nature because they require more "work" on the part of the parent. RIAA controls are self-serving, and are designed to reduce "work" on the part of RIAA member companies and shareholders to create value in the goods and works they produce. Freedom of choice should be measured and released in appropriate amounts as warranted by the demonstrated levels of responsible behavior by the child so that the child can learn how to balance the responsibilities of their freedoms over time.
Would those of you who claim children should be allowed to make all their own choices on the Internet also hand a young child a fully loaded gun or the keys to your car without the instruction, experience, and maturity level to handle such things responsibly?
Full optimization of the system known as the global economy is of little concern to the PHB who wants to stay within his budget to keep his boss looking good this month/quarter/year.
I agree with parent mostly, although I really have to say that it won't EVER be about the money. You're fresh out of school and don't know what to do: welcome to the world! Barely any of us really know what we want to be doing 10 years from now!
My suggestion is to go travel the world. Take big risks. This sounds like awfully trite advice, I'm sure, but if you're like most of the rest of the world you will eventually get married or get to a point in life where you are "settled", and you won't want to regret having missed out on some good plain livin'.
I bet you will only need a year of travel, simpleton jobs, and adventures to start to get an idea for what you want to do. I'm not saying you shouldn't be ambitious in pursuing a career, but at this stage of your life it really won't matter whether you spent a year in helpdesk support, being a waiter, or simply tromping from hostel to hostel all over Europe. Your level of activity and how you handled your experiences will matter more to employers than what exactly you did at this, the very beginning of your life in the real world.
I wonder if this same kind of chicken little type fearmongering is the same thing that the "global warming" religion followers are doing...
Yeah, seriously. I mean, if any of the disaster scenarios that THOSE freaks were talking about were real, then wouldn't you first expect to see things like massive thawing of thermal reservoirs like the polar ice caps, permafrost, and the glaciers?
Oh, wait....
Except that none of those problems have had ANY impact with anything in my life or billions of other people's lives on this planet yet, and for the record, this kind of fearmongering IS NOT NEW!:
All I am saying is that while the earth has warmed up during the past couple of hundred years, there is a lot of debate in many scientist circles as to the causes of this warming. Just because population levels and CO2 levels are up, does not imply obvious causation - correlation, sure - but not causation.
We have never run out of oil, or minerals, or noble gases, or raw earth minerals yet. Maybe we'll have to find alternatives and make do with less of those items, sure, but we'll never run out of them because the cost to acquire and use them will go up and will begin limiting who uses them and for what purposes to the point that we'll never run out - that's basic economics. (and not just monetary economic theory, I'm talking about economics of supply and demand) So whenever starts talking about running out of something, my BS meter goes off immediately because it just generally never happens... ESPECIALLY with regards to raw materials.
Being the loudest Chicken Little doesn't make you scientifically accurate, it makes you controversial, and media outlets EAT THAT UP every single time because it sells to the general public quite well.
/. poster 'tomhudson' is Foe and a Foe of a Friend for me, and I recognized the hypocrisy of this non-story right away. So I did my own quick "research" on this topic. The author of the editorial that tomhudson talks about is Robert Silverberg, a well known science fiction author. Why this editorial from a non-scientific blog can be considered a knowledgeable reference source on this topic is beyond probably most/.'ers since this is hardly a scientifically justified conclusion in the editorial.
I wonder if this same kind of chicken little type fearmongering is the same thing that the "global warming" religion followers are doing...
Ah yes, more of the same. Attack me, not the refutability of the argument. I am not arguing here whether or not global warming is a confirmed, scientific fact. First of all, I was summarizing GP post's conclusion. Secondly, I was pointing out that the parent post offered up nothing in the way of contextual evidence to refute the original claims, just whined about GP posts style, form, and beliefs - not the truthfulness or falseness of the evidence/facts. You, on the other hand, did at least provide a link to refute the GP posts facts, but still don't do any logical arguing for why his facts are wrong anyway so you only made it halfway to a logical argument. Lastly, you pull out the old "so-called evidence" and "overwhelmingly" verbiage that suggests your stance that intelligent dialog cannot happen unless everyone agrees with the website realclimate.org and your unstated but implied position that global warming is a fact and everyone must believe that before any intelligent dialog can be had.
Why would you expect me to have a civil, intelligent dialog with you about the issues surrounding the topic of "global warming" (I use the quotations to frame the issue, not to point it out as a myth or somehow unsubstantiated) if you are unwilling to begin the dialog with civil, intelligent writing and thought? This is the problem I had with the parent poster too... just more of the same: "you don't believe my position, so you obviously can't talk intelligently about it" - that's not mature dialog, that's behaving like a fifth-grader.
And yes, I know, expecting to find intelligent dialog on/. is like expecting to find a gold ring at the bottom of an outhouse.
Your question is too simplistic, and while I will likely get modded to hell for posting this link, it should give you several good references to begin answering your basic questions. (Just do a "find" in the article and type 'temp' to quickly find the references to factors related to temperature fluctuations and how they would affect life on earth.) http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
Listen, context matters, and in this context, grandparent poster is looking at a valid, specific argument from an analytical, factual position and is backing it up with a rough draft of the scientific facts to support his conclusions about the "myth of global warming"... in other words, humans don't cause global warming, or at worst, it's unclear that humans have had much to do with the rising global temperatures observed for the past 100yrs or so.
Your argument to refute his claims doesn't even deal in the same context. You attack his argument, or the style in which it was made, or his conclusions, but not any of his evidence using your own. Why? Probably because you do not have any good refutable evidence to the contrary.
Hence, the ancillary point he made is proven: there are carbon cultists, they just prefer to call themselves something different. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
If she's interested in furthering her political career and running her country better than others at the same time (which most well-intentioned politicians really are interested in), then she needs to consider this:
Would Sweden be better served giving into demands of the USA's RIAA and MPAA organizations, whom through campaign donations and lobby coziness with our government are a cheaply acquired and paid-for type of mercenary force seeking to enforce copyright laws of the US primarily for their own gain (see Machiavelli's The Prince); OR, would Sweden be better served building their own industry that supports and protects its citizens (ALL of them, not just entertainers) from the machinations of those who would desire additional buying power not just in the US, but in Sweden as well?
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is increased productivity, temporary displacement of workers, commoditization of services that were formerly rendered by humans. People go on living. All this FUD about AI is very silly. How does the world still easily support 7B+ people when people seriously talked about the need to depopulate the earth in the 1970â(TM)s? Technological progress in agriculture. How will the world still have jobs for 8-9B+ people when AI has âoetaken overâ? Technological progress to increase the job productivity of every individual human thanks to AI.
My 10 month old son is recovering from a bone marrow transplant. We LIVE in the hospital. We were in a room recently that had a wireless repeater with a bright blue LED. Nothing contributes more to a less sleepful night for a baby (and a parent who sleeps in the room with him) than that single point of annoying light on the ceiling. Seems to me an old school fuse type device that trips when the access point loses power or signal would make more sense than those stupid LED lights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
Sancho, either you actually believe such a ridiculous statement, or you sir, are the worst troll I've seen in a while on Slashdot.
I love this! The "science is god" crowd always loves to cry foul when anyone claims that there are fundamental absolutes about morality, existence, and rationality because, well, obviously we don't know everything. But when science fiction *possibilities* (not probabilities, but possibilities - and in this case, rather far-fetched ones) are taken to task, they want to cry foul again. So which is it, atheists/evolutionists/agnostics? Do we have ANY reasonable, rational basis to believe that information CAN be transmitted faster than light? (Cluetrain: The answer is NO!) Do we have any reasonable, rational basis to disprove God's existence either? (Cluetrain: no, you don't... perhaps you can't prove His existence, but you also can't disprove His existence, either, on purely material grounds.) BTW, The General Theory of Relativity *refined* Newton's theories; it didn't blow it away and make it null and void.
Dropbox is a great "access anywhere" secure solution across all major OS platforms, and using KeePass is a great software (as many have already mentioned) for managing all the different passwords you have. Upload KeePass - the executable and the database - to Dropbox, keep your master password verification file that KeePass creates for you on the computers you use and a USB key drive, and you will be very safe and secure, but unhindered by being tied to a particular OS or physical media. When you use dozens of different password-only websites, multiple network logins at work, and your own home computer password apps, it becomes imperative to manage it all in some sane way. The only way to do this for me before was a USB key + TrueCrypt + KeePass, but with Dropbox you eliminate the physical media to be lost accidentally. (And I thought a while back that I HAD lost my USB key, and I literally started freaking out before finding it on my car floor. Switched to Dropbox later that night, and no more freak-out sessions for me.)
Processing 1.0 fill your needs?
I've been saying for years that I need such a contraption on my car!! You bikers have all the fun! :(
del.icio.us has plugins for IE, Firefox, and there is a less useful third-party plugin for Safari which make it easy to "sync" your bookmarks across computers, so I use that for my browser synchronization.
TrueCrypt keeps my really important data (passwords, resume, other sensitive personally identifiable info) safe and secure on my USB drive.
My USB stick on my keychain holds a copy of TrueCrypt to boot from directly when you plug it into a USB port (you need admin authority on the computer you're using to use this feature though), and then some other miscellaneous documents I wouldn't want to lose but aren't sensitive sit on my USB stick in generic folders.
And lastly, my iPod holds a copy of all of the music I care to not lose. (My wife and I also have a 750GB backup drive attached to our iMac at home to keep all of our media files, like photos and video, backed up)
Everything else is either done "in the cloud" online for us, or is proprietary or sensitive data that shouldn't be getting moved off of the primary computer it is on anyway.
Because people should just stop touching the monkeys. They've got problems enough as it is!
I downloaded one of the reports from this AV testing company/lab. Yeah, their report used Courier New throughout. Seriously, it's not that hard to just use the default Times New Roman or Arial fonts for reports. I don't expect perfection in presentation, but to intentionally choose a difficult-to-read font because it's what programmers use on the command line reeks of annoying.
P.S. I'm ALL FOR Creative Commons and open source type copyright for the individual, but in those systems I maintain ownership of the content I created while requiring (by law) that others make note of my original authorship of that content. I'm just concerned that a site like Wikipedia blurs the line far too much between who owns what - content, editorial control, facts, truth, etc.
In a very broad sense, this is why socialism doesn't work at the political or financial level, and we are only now beginning to better understand why. The web is much closer to our everyday experience than politics and the financial system are for most of us. We see in Wikipedia why Communism was such a huge failure in Russia. Eventually the corrupt bend the rules, take the reigns that some well-meaning individuals gladly gave up in the name of "helping others", and it ultimately results in a backwards system of disinformation and unintended consequences that benefit the few and punish the many even more than in a more competitive system like a free market economy or a multi-tiered political system. Neither communism or socialism or capitalism or a democratic republic are free of negatives, but it is the communist and socialist systems that are so much more susceptible to corruption.
Wikipedia is susceptible to corruption. When Jimmy Wales moves on, I can almost bet money that the next 'owner' of Wikipedia will find more ways to quickly monetize the content myself and thousands (millions?) of others have provided to benefit themselves and their immediate cadre of editors/admins to the exclusion of the rest of us who created the value and power of what they now control.
Children (and I mean anyone under the age of say... 16?) with access to pr0n who then learn how to talk to strangers on the Internet who are paedophiles that then want to meet the child, can indeed be a life or death situation for the child. My argument that it can be likened to giving a child a gun WITHOUT PROPER INSTRUCTION is not completely stupid. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you were just saving time by not quoting my entire sentence rather than actually having misunderstood the differences between simply having a gun, and knowing how to use it in a responsible manner.)
Besides, your view of the long-term impacts of pr0n is a chink in your armor: You assume that pornography does no mental or psychological damage to a child, and therefore it is completely different and not a relevant comparison of the physical damage done to oneself by wrecking a car or firing a gun. On this we clearly disagree.
And it was the parent post's intent to draw the correlation (albeit in a roundabout manner) to how the child would view the parent in their love/hate for them: "if you want your children to regard you with the same warm affection we give the RIAA, this is definitely the way to go about it." So my argument about the motivations behind parental controls and the RIAA's controls still stands.
Kids eventually learn enough to be sneaky enough to hide things from their parents, that is true, but comparing parental controls to financial protectionism by the RIAA is not a good analogy. Parental controls are designed (usually) out of love and concern for the lifelong well-being of the child - they are selfless in nature because they require more "work" on the part of the parent. RIAA controls are self-serving, and are designed to reduce "work" on the part of RIAA member companies and shareholders to create value in the goods and works they produce. Freedom of choice should be measured and released in appropriate amounts as warranted by the demonstrated levels of responsible behavior by the child so that the child can learn how to balance the responsibilities of their freedoms over time.
Would those of you who claim children should be allowed to make all their own choices on the Internet also hand a young child a fully loaded gun or the keys to your car without the instruction, experience, and maturity level to handle such things responsibly?
#5 - Once you take care of the "introverted" problem... get a girlfriend and do a lot of the world's #1 calorie-burning exercise.
Ah, but you're forgetting the incredible toll this will exact from your mental state, wallet, and liver.
Full optimization of the system known as the global economy is of little concern to the PHB who wants to stay within his budget to keep his boss looking good this month/quarter/year.
I agree with parent mostly, although I really have to say that it won't EVER be about the money. You're fresh out of school and don't know what to do: welcome to the world! Barely any of us really know what we want to be doing 10 years from now!
My suggestion is to go travel the world. Take big risks. This sounds like awfully trite advice, I'm sure, but if you're like most of the rest of the world you will eventually get married or get to a point in life where you are "settled", and you won't want to regret having missed out on some good plain livin'.
I bet you will only need a year of travel, simpleton jobs, and adventures to start to get an idea for what you want to do. I'm not saying you shouldn't be ambitious in pursuing a career, but at this stage of your life it really won't matter whether you spent a year in helpdesk support, being a waiter, or simply tromping from hostel to hostel all over Europe. Your level of activity and how you handled your experiences will matter more to employers than what exactly you did at this, the very beginning of your life in the real world.
I wonder if this same kind of chicken little type fearmongering is the same thing that the "global warming" religion followers are doing...
Yeah, seriously. I mean, if any of the disaster scenarios that THOSE freaks were talking about were real, then wouldn't you first expect to see things like massive thawing of thermal reservoirs like the polar ice caps, permafrost, and the glaciers?
Oh, wait....
Except that none of those problems have had ANY impact with anything in my life or billions of other people's lives on this planet yet, and for the record, this kind of fearmongering IS NOT NEW!:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling (N that unlike the "Vostok ice core" chart on this page, all other "global warming" fearmongering charts stop at around 1850 when surface temperatures were first recorded on a consistent basis.)
All I am saying is that while the earth has warmed up during the past couple of hundred years, there is a lot of debate in many scientist circles as to the causes of this warming. Just because population levels and CO2 levels are up, does not imply obvious causation - correlation, sure - but not causation.
We have never run out of oil, or minerals, or noble gases, or raw earth minerals yet. Maybe we'll have to find alternatives and make do with less of those items, sure, but we'll never run out of them because the cost to acquire and use them will go up and will begin limiting who uses them and for what purposes to the point that we'll never run out - that's basic economics. (and not just monetary economic theory, I'm talking about economics of supply and demand) So whenever starts talking about running out of something, my BS meter goes off immediately because it just generally never happens... ESPECIALLY with regards to raw materials.
Being the loudest Chicken Little doesn't make you scientifically accurate, it makes you controversial, and media outlets EAT THAT UP every single time because it sells to the general public quite well.
/. poster 'tomhudson' is Foe and a Foe of a Friend for me, and I recognized the hypocrisy of this non-story right away. So I did my own quick "research" on this topic. The author of the editorial that tomhudson talks about is Robert Silverberg, a well known science fiction author. Why this editorial from a non-scientific blog can be considered a knowledgeable reference source on this topic is beyond probably most /.'ers since this is hardly a scientifically justified conclusion in the editorial.
I wonder if this same kind of chicken little type fearmongering is the same thing that the "global warming" religion followers are doing...
Ah yes, more of the same. Attack me, not the refutability of the argument. I am not arguing here whether or not global warming is a confirmed, scientific fact. First of all, I was summarizing GP post's conclusion. Secondly, I was pointing out that the parent post offered up nothing in the way of contextual evidence to refute the original claims, just whined about GP posts style, form, and beliefs - not the truthfulness or falseness of the evidence/facts. You, on the other hand, did at least provide a link to refute the GP posts facts, but still don't do any logical arguing for why his facts are wrong anyway so you only made it halfway to a logical argument. Lastly, you pull out the old "so-called evidence" and "overwhelmingly" verbiage that suggests your stance that intelligent dialog cannot happen unless everyone agrees with the website realclimate.org and your unstated but implied position that global warming is a fact and everyone must believe that before any intelligent dialog can be had.
/. is like expecting to find a gold ring at the bottom of an outhouse.
Why would you expect me to have a civil, intelligent dialog with you about the issues surrounding the topic of "global warming" (I use the quotations to frame the issue, not to point it out as a myth or somehow unsubstantiated) if you are unwilling to begin the dialog with civil, intelligent writing and thought? This is the problem I had with the parent poster too... just more of the same: "you don't believe my position, so you obviously can't talk intelligently about it" - that's not mature dialog, that's behaving like a fifth-grader.
And yes, I know, expecting to find intelligent dialog on
Your question is too simplistic, and while I will likely get modded to hell for posting this link, it should give you several good references to begin answering your basic questions. (Just do a "find" in the article and type 'temp' to quickly find the references to factors related to temperature fluctuations and how they would affect life on earth.) http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
Listen, context matters, and in this context, grandparent poster is looking at a valid, specific argument from an analytical, factual position and is backing it up with a rough draft of the scientific facts to support his conclusions about the "myth of global warming" ... in other words, humans don't cause global warming, or at worst, it's unclear that humans have had much to do with the rising global temperatures observed for the past 100yrs or so.
Your argument to refute his claims doesn't even deal in the same context. You attack his argument, or the style in which it was made, or his conclusions, but not any of his evidence using your own. Why? Probably because you do not have any good refutable evidence to the contrary.
Hence, the ancillary point he made is proven: there are carbon cultists, they just prefer to call themselves something different. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
If she's interested in furthering her political career and running her country better than others at the same time (which most well-intentioned politicians really are interested in), then she needs to consider this:
Would Sweden be better served giving into demands of the USA's RIAA and MPAA organizations, whom through campaign donations and lobby coziness with our government are a cheaply acquired and paid-for type of mercenary force seeking to enforce copyright laws of the US primarily for their own gain (see Machiavelli's The Prince); OR, would Sweden be better served building their own industry that supports and protects its citizens (ALL of them, not just entertainers) from the machinations of those who would desire additional buying power not just in the US, but in Sweden as well?