It's a fair analysis. Climate research has unwisely become a black box process, tended by oligarchs, because researchers are justifiably paranoid about having their work destroyed by industry. The black box is what causes the problem. We got the exact same results from the Warren Commission or 9/11 truthers. The experts tell us not to worry, but they also tell us everything is classified (or missing), and they can't adequately answer questions because it is "too complicated" or there are legal issues.
Anyone trying to challenge such non-informative, authority-based assertions naturally tends to look like a loon, because they have nothing factual to work with, other than a suspicion that the authority cannot be trusted. I personally don't think there's a "conspiracy" to commit some sort of climate fraud, certainly not on the part of the climatologists, but I'd like to see the process be open. People are the most immediately obvious flaw in any system, and scientists can become misguided without rigorous defense against real opponents. I'd like to see questions become fashionable again, no matter who made it unfashionable (and I think both sides share a measure of the blame).
Plus, somewhere deep in the back of my head I know that climatologists cannot predict what the weather will be in 7 days much better than a dartboard, and I have to wonder if the macroscopic models are sound, or even relevant.
The only way to find out? Open source 'em. Let many hands make light the work, and it will become clear who the shills are, hopefully before anything goes boom. With everything locked in a black box, conspiracy baloney will abound, and we are not going to get a reasoned, competitively tested solution.
Exxon has as much right to fix the problem as the NSF, NOAA and the university system, and I believe they have as much incentive. What this really comes down to is a belief that we cannot come together and solve any problem. That some hidden "evil" is guiding one side or the other.
I will bet against that. We can do this, but it has to be opened up to daylight.
That resonates with me. Politicians are "sure." Every scientist I've ever known can't wait to observe something that proves themselves wrong. The bigger the theory you can falsify, no matter how arcane the case, the better. This is what scientists dream about.
Now, engineers. Engineers like to be sure, and their stuff blows up all the time! They even plan multiple fail-safes to be sure it doesn't kill anyone.:^D
I agree with that sentiment (I have asthma, as do my kids), though I don't know by what criteria you call the only atmosphere anyone's ever known "thin."
But that's all it is. It's a sentiment, not a reason. We correlate it reliably with pulmonary disorders, that's a reason.
On a related topic, I also think "Chicken Little" tastes good with barbecue sauce. I hope they chuck a bucket of the stuff at somebody over this debacle (whoever turns out to be full of it).
This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening.
No, this is about how "scientific tools" behave when they are used in the service of power instead of knowledge. We cannot be x% "sure" of anything. That's semantic balderdash, not science. Sure is sure. It is 100% and it has no doubters. In the lab, if one is "sure," there's no point to the experiment or model. What's happening here is that for political action to happen, politicians are demanding surety, and science can't give it. We can't even properly falsify many of the claims being made, on either side of the argument. There is too much agenda in the way.
At this point, and I don't understand why it didn't happen sooner given the carbon projects in the works, the lid needs to be blown off of this thing and everyone needs all the data and methodology to be public, so it can be replicated. No other method will be fruitful. We need a mountain of evidence proving that these models are sound, and an end to ad hominem attacks on analysis. That's the way it should work.
Scientists may sometimes be good politicians, but the politics, ideally, should end after the grant application, it has no place in the practice of science.
Some good scientists names are going to be ruined because they failed to be skilled politicians, and that's a shame.
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.
PC Guy: Oh my God! How do you expect me to manage security in the Gaza strip! Seriously! Windows works just fine. The fact that World War III hasn't started here should tell you I'm doing just fine.
Mac Guy: (standing astride the Swiss Alps, sipping cocoa in his posh chalet) I don't see a problem, PC. You're a failure.
Woman: I'm going with Mac.
Mac Guy (looking down upon her): Okay, but you're going to have to move out of the Middle East first.
The reason we have monolithic companies is often because of the mountainous legal requirements necessary to market a product. Increasing that barrier means you have to be a giant monopoly to bring your product to market, and you can even sabotage other smaller competitors by whistle-blowing to regulators over minor issues.
In short: The more legislation and regulation you have, the bigger and faceless the companies that remain in business will be. There are some heavily regulated industries where it is absolutely _impossible_ to be a start up without serious VC backing. Video games shouldn't be one of them.
The post, dubbed 'Operation Chokehold,' wants AT&T customers to use as much data service as they can on Friday, December 18th at noon. While Fake Steve Jobs is notable for its satire, many Twitter and Facebook users seem to be rallying to its cry. It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS.
So basically, he's incited the deliberate sabotage of a public communications network. Really?
I get the feeling "Fake Steve Jobs" is going to be hearing from "Real Homeland Security" soon.:^/
Just like site SEO, Google can store stuff on you, but they have difficulty vetting it for relevancy and/or scoring it. Make a few bogus searches, from time to time each month, about really weird, embarrassing things that have nothing to do with you, and also very mundane but specific things that have nothing to do with you. You can learn all sorts of interesting things in the process. If they're going to have a data file on you, make sure it contains everything and then you have plausible deniability regarding anything specific. Make sure the information stored about you is often wildly inaccurate and then have a laugh at the ad results for genital herpes cream and whatnot.
Everyone who bothered to check knew Barack Obama was in the pocket of the copyright cabal. We voted for Obama because we no longer wanted our President to escalate an unnecessary war.
-- Toro
(bring your sense of humor, because this post is sarcasm.)
Fact is, wealthy kids have more access to technology. Wealth generally equals better language skills. Enough to create a marked correlation. Period. This is true if only because the wealthy define what "literacy skills" are. Always have, and until wealth no longer matters, always will.
They used to think that such benefits of wealth were the product of "good breeding" in jolly old England. They were wrong. Being well fed, having opportunities, and living in a community where you weren't in fear of your life, and in this case with individual tutors to teach you your subjects and surrounded by people with equivalent training, was what caused "literacy," not genetics.
It's the same case here, but a different false cause. If you regularly "blog, text or use social networking websites," you fall into the all-important "wealthier than 80% of the people on the planet" category, and that makes all the difference. Remove "texting" from your criteria and you're in probably clear into the 95th percentile.
(Oh, and side note, sample size? Only 3001 respondents?! Really.)
Correlative studies of this sort are a waste of time. As in: Forgone conclusion, unspecified causative link, completely subjective measurements. It would be as useful to say that warm water feels less wet than cold, and is therefore not as wet, and that heating water makes it less potent.
The word I use for what we have now is corporatism.
Basically, we have a bunch of entities, often ones that are "too big to fail," arguing about who will get screwed next to further their ends. These ends are presumed and perceived to be beneficial to the needs of society, the "body" of corporatism. The representative Congress and the "free market" don't exist independent of this model, and have been bent to serve it entirely. The real legislative actors are lobbyists, and other collusion in the form of industry groups (RIAA, et al.), foundations (Mozilla, et al.), alliances public and private, and just outright cartel operation in some industries (like energy) deprive the individual of almost all power in America. We just get to pick which brand serves our needs.
Patent trolls are a natural outgrowth of this corporatist structure. They are like mosquitos efficiently bleeding the large corporate actors, which are like the organs of the body. Fascism? Not really, I think we're a far cry from Mussolini, an infamous corporatist. It wouldn't take much to tip us his way, though.
I just tagged this puppy "snowballinhell" because that's the chance such a suit has. Plaintiffs agreed to the terms of the service. Plaintiffs agreed that termination by terms of the service was "at will" for "any reason." There isn't a court in this country would find for such a Plaintiff.
You don't have a right to "XBox Live" and your hardware still works for any other purpose. They didn't brick your box, did they?
I sympathize, but ultimately, IMHO, this isn't remotely actionable. IANAL.
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
But... but... whatever will we do without a "magic" mouse?;^P
Yup. They're never going to understand that expensive gimmicks just get your foot in the door, but taking your solid code and sharing it, for a modest price, is what changes the way the world works.
GNU/Linux will probably have caught up with OS X in 5 years, if personal computers are still relevant, and Apple will still have the same market share, the same snarky ads implying how "cool" they are, and the same timid overtures to the "purity" of their product that keeps them running in place. I expect them to be a music company in 10 years, just 50 years after the Beatles "Apple Records."
When software companies start worrying about whether their software is "genuine" or "cool" over whether it works well and is used ubiquitously, they've got one foot in the damned grave and a competitor is waiting to push.
(As for "one foot in the grave," if you want to mod some "flamebait," you can take that as a snide joke about Jobs and let 'er rip. I've got karma to burn.)
Maybe Psystar's lawyers were instructed to "Think Bizarre," as a Psystar-sold alternative to "Think Different?"
Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X
on
Psystar Crushed In Court
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think the problem comes in when you image dump it to a bunch of commodity hard disks and sell hundreds of machines from the one copy you bought on the single cheapo Apple computer you bought.
First-sale allows you to sell that one copy, or possibly put it in one new machine, not open up a distribution center.
Psystar's boneheaded defense was that first-sale lets you, vis-a-vis, buy a $16 factory-recorded CD and a spool of a hundred 50-cent CD-Rs, and sell the "new product" at half price, turning a $7.50 profit on each disc. They were wrong. Copyright law doesn't look kindly upon that.
And that is why Psystar got pounded. If they bought a hundred cheap iMacs, modded the software, and put it in exactly a hundred high-end workstations, first-sale might have a ghost of a chance of applying.
But then, you'd have to be an individual reselling, and not be a reseller business, incorporated to turn a profit on a derivative work, which you don't have the rights to and is also a violation of copyright. This is what you think is "stupid." That I should be able to, say, delete one of the mediocre filler tracks off of that $16 dollar CD and sell it for $8. It doesn't matter if I convert them to MP3's first, etc., I'm selling them, as a business, which makes me a distributor.
It's copyright. You can't copy it for resale. You can't make a derivative work for resale if you don't have the consent of the rights holder. You can't redistribute it for substantial gain. Copyright law has been that way since long before the DMCA. The operative words are "resale" and "substantial gain." This is why it's a summary judgment, because Psystar didn't have a case. They were like the New York Yankees showing up to play water polo here.
What Apple did is in accordance with the law, and it's their duty to their shareholders to defend their rights. I won't go so far as to claim that they were "right," or "good," but if folks don't like this, then they need work to change the law, because that's what the law says.
In my experience, the law is almost always "stupid," or at the very least it's blunt. It doesn't exist as a "common sense way to live" and while the courts are a system, the law is not. The law is there to arbitrate conflicts when all other options have broken down, with little to no room for compromise so there is a clear "winner." If you want compromise, or sense, you settle outside of court as soon as possible. We should not look to the courts for guidance, we should look to the courts for a clear redress of our grievances when all else fails.
What is that then? A Bluetooth device? Do you swing your iPhone around like a stick while trying to look at your waggling screen?
Do you plug your surplus Atari VCS stick into the serial port via a 9-pin D-SUB port converter?
I'm going to go with David Lynch on this one, who famously ranted that "you can't watch a movie on a fscking phone." You can't have a "realistic" joystick on a phone, because an image of a joystick is not realistic, nor does it even approximate the input device. It's a neat toy, not a reproduction heirloom.
Why do I nitpick? Frankly I don't like reading obvious marketing text in my summary. This goes for "beautifully crafted" too. Report, don't advertise, please.
There is a solution to this: Pirate Party in 2012. That's the damned solution. Shame on any municipality for claiming that laws, which are in the public domain by definition, can be restricted from copy, as a product. The laws to which we assent must be accessible to anyone affected by them upon demand, and furnished conveniently at cost, in order for us to assent to them and in order for justice to function, even limping and lopsided as it has been for the past few decades.
As regards the law, we are entitled citizens, not privileged consumers. If there is no law to that effect, it should be added to the Freedom of Information Act immediately and become a Federal mandate.
Barring that, or uniform state code of some kind, the solution is very simple: If government will not grant us justice nor peace, as is its duty, we will steal it. Copyright infringement will become a service, not a crime. By whatever means necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fair analysis. Climate research has unwisely become a black box process, tended by oligarchs, because researchers are justifiably paranoid about having their work destroyed by industry. The black box is what causes the problem. We got the exact same results from the Warren Commission or 9/11 truthers. The experts tell us not to worry, but they also tell us everything is classified (or missing), and they can't adequately answer questions because it is "too complicated" or there are legal issues.
Anyone trying to challenge such non-informative, authority-based assertions naturally tends to look like a loon, because they have nothing factual to work with, other than a suspicion that the authority cannot be trusted. I personally don't think there's a "conspiracy" to commit some sort of climate fraud, certainly not on the part of the climatologists, but I'd like to see the process be open. People are the most immediately obvious flaw in any system, and scientists can become misguided without rigorous defense against real opponents. I'd like to see questions become fashionable again, no matter who made it unfashionable (and I think both sides share a measure of the blame).
Plus, somewhere deep in the back of my head I know that climatologists cannot predict what the weather will be in 7 days much better than a dartboard, and I have to wonder if the macroscopic models are sound, or even relevant.
The only way to find out? Open source 'em. Let many hands make light the work, and it will become clear who the shills are, hopefully before anything goes boom. With everything locked in a black box, conspiracy baloney will abound, and we are not going to get a reasoned, competitively tested solution.
Exxon has as much right to fix the problem as the NSF, NOAA and the university system, and I believe they have as much incentive. What this really comes down to is a belief that we cannot come together and solve any problem. That some hidden "evil" is guiding one side or the other.
I will bet against that. We can do this, but it has to be opened up to daylight.
--
Toro
The climate data determines the weather stations?
Mother Russia destroys global warming?
It's so damn cold in your shorts pee YOU?
No wait, I think that last one was Yoda-talk.
--
Toro
Hey, the Republican color is "red." Significance? ;^)
That resonates with me. Politicians are "sure." Every scientist I've ever known can't wait to observe something that proves themselves wrong. The bigger the theory you can falsify, no matter how arcane the case, the better. This is what scientists dream about.
Now, engineers. Engineers like to be sure, and their stuff blows up all the time! They even plan multiple fail-safes to be sure it doesn't kill anyone. :^D
--
Toro
I agree with that sentiment (I have asthma, as do my kids), though I don't know by what criteria you call the only atmosphere anyone's ever known "thin."
But that's all it is. It's a sentiment, not a reason. We correlate it reliably with pulmonary disorders, that's a reason.
On a related topic, I also think "Chicken Little" tastes good with barbecue sauce. I hope they chuck a bucket of the stuff at somebody over this debacle (whoever turns out to be full of it).
--
Toro
This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening.
No, this is about how "scientific tools" behave when they are used in the service of power instead of knowledge. We cannot be x% "sure" of anything. That's semantic balderdash, not science. Sure is sure. It is 100% and it has no doubters. In the lab, if one is "sure," there's no point to the experiment or model. What's happening here is that for political action to happen, politicians are demanding surety, and science can't give it. We can't even properly falsify many of the claims being made, on either side of the argument. There is too much agenda in the way.
At this point, and I don't understand why it didn't happen sooner given the carbon projects in the works, the lid needs to be blown off of this thing and everyone needs all the data and methodology to be public, so it can be replicated. No other method will be fruitful. We need a mountain of evidence proving that these models are sound, and an end to ad hominem attacks on analysis. That's the way it should work.
Scientists may sometimes be good politicians, but the politics, ideally, should end after the grant application, it has no place in the practice of science.
Some good scientists names are going to be ruined because they failed to be skilled politicians, and that's a shame.
--
Toro
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.
PC Guy: Oh my God! How do you expect me to manage security in the Gaza strip! Seriously! Windows works just fine. The fact that World War III hasn't started here should tell you I'm doing just fine.
Mac Guy: (standing astride the Swiss Alps, sipping cocoa in his posh chalet) I don't see a problem, PC. You're a failure.
Woman: I'm going with Mac.
Mac Guy (looking down upon her): Okay, but you're going to have to move out of the Middle East first.
--
Toro
The reason we have monolithic companies is often because of the mountainous legal requirements necessary to market a product. Increasing that barrier means you have to be a giant monopoly to bring your product to market, and you can even sabotage other smaller competitors by whistle-blowing to regulators over minor issues.
In short: The more legislation and regulation you have, the bigger and faceless the companies that remain in business will be. There are some heavily regulated industries where it is absolutely _impossible_ to be a start up without serious VC backing. Video games shouldn't be one of them.
--
Toro
The post, dubbed 'Operation Chokehold,' wants AT&T customers to use as much data service as they can on Friday, December 18th at noon. While Fake Steve Jobs is notable for its satire, many Twitter and Facebook users seem to be rallying to its cry. It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS.
So basically, he's incited the deliberate sabotage of a public communications network. Really?
I get the feeling "Fake Steve Jobs" is going to be hearing from "Real Homeland Security" soon. :^/
--
Toro
Take your soma and like it, kids.
Deeply troubling, but not unexpected.
--
Toro
Just like site SEO, Google can store stuff on you, but they have difficulty vetting it for relevancy and/or scoring it. Make a few bogus searches, from time to time each month, about really weird, embarrassing things that have nothing to do with you, and also very mundane but specific things that have nothing to do with you. You can learn all sorts of interesting things in the process. If they're going to have a data file on you, make sure it contains everything and then you have plausible deniability regarding anything specific. Make sure the information stored about you is often wildly inaccurate and then have a laugh at the ad results for genital herpes cream and whatnot.
--
Toro
LCDs actually cost a buck oh-five.
--
Toro
He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
Google knows when you've been bad or good,
So "don't be evil."
Merry Christmas everyone.
--
Toro
Everyone who bothered to check knew Barack Obama was in the pocket of the copyright cabal. We voted for Obama because we no longer wanted our President to escalate an unnecessary war.
--
Toro
(bring your sense of humor, because this post is sarcasm.)
We did keep voting Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank into the senate, where they helped create the mortgage crisis.
Barney Frank is a member of the House of Representatives. Check your own facts and assumptions, carefully, before calling other people "stupid."
Otherwise you just wind up looking like this.
--
Toro
Fact is, wealthy kids have more access to technology. Wealth generally equals better language skills. Enough to create a marked correlation. Period. This is true if only because the wealthy define what "literacy skills" are. Always have, and until wealth no longer matters, always will.
They used to think that such benefits of wealth were the product of "good breeding" in jolly old England. They were wrong. Being well fed, having opportunities, and living in a community where you weren't in fear of your life, and in this case with individual tutors to teach you your subjects and surrounded by people with equivalent training, was what caused "literacy," not genetics.
It's the same case here, but a different false cause. If you regularly "blog, text or use social networking websites," you fall into the all-important "wealthier than 80% of the people on the planet" category, and that makes all the difference. Remove "texting" from your criteria and you're in probably clear into the 95th percentile.
(Oh, and side note, sample size? Only 3001 respondents?! Really.)
Correlative studies of this sort are a waste of time. As in: Forgone conclusion, unspecified causative link, completely subjective measurements. It would be as useful to say that warm water feels less wet than cold, and is therefore not as wet, and that heating water makes it less potent.
--
Toro
mucked up form of facist-capitalism
The word I use for what we have now is corporatism.
Basically, we have a bunch of entities, often ones that are "too big to fail," arguing about who will get screwed next to further their ends. These ends are presumed and perceived to be beneficial to the needs of society, the "body" of corporatism. The representative Congress and the "free market" don't exist independent of this model, and have been bent to serve it entirely. The real legislative actors are lobbyists, and other collusion in the form of industry groups (RIAA, et al.), foundations (Mozilla, et al.), alliances public and private, and just outright cartel operation in some industries (like energy) deprive the individual of almost all power in America. We just get to pick which brand serves our needs.
Patent trolls are a natural outgrowth of this corporatist structure. They are like mosquitos efficiently bleeding the large corporate actors, which are like the organs of the body. Fascism? Not really, I think we're a far cry from Mussolini, an infamous corporatist. It wouldn't take much to tip us his way, though.
--
Toro
I just tagged this puppy "snowballinhell" because that's the chance such a suit has. Plaintiffs agreed to the terms of the service. Plaintiffs agreed that termination by terms of the service was "at will" for "any reason." There isn't a court in this country would find for such a Plaintiff.
You don't have a right to "XBox Live" and your hardware still works for any other purpose. They didn't brick your box, did they?
I sympathize, but ultimately, IMHO, this isn't remotely actionable. IANAL.
--
Toro
Jesus FTW.
$34 billion? On Mac? Really? You don't think that's mostly their iPod business, maybe?
And if they don't do anything with that cash, well, "gold is the corpse of value," as the wise Mr. Stephenson once said.
--
Toro
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
But... but... whatever will we do without a "magic" mouse? ;^P
Yup. They're never going to understand that expensive gimmicks just get your foot in the door, but taking your solid code and sharing it, for a modest price, is what changes the way the world works.
GNU/Linux will probably have caught up with OS X in 5 years, if personal computers are still relevant, and Apple will still have the same market share, the same snarky ads implying how "cool" they are, and the same timid overtures to the "purity" of their product that keeps them running in place. I expect them to be a music company in 10 years, just 50 years after the Beatles "Apple Records."
When software companies start worrying about whether their software is "genuine" or "cool" over whether it works well and is used ubiquitously, they've got one foot in the damned grave and a competitor is waiting to push.
(As for "one foot in the grave," if you want to mod some "flamebait," you can take that as a snide joke about Jobs and let 'er rip. I've got karma to burn.)
--
Toro
Maybe Psystar's lawyers were instructed to "Think Bizarre," as a Psystar-sold alternative to "Think Different?"
I think the problem comes in when you image dump it to a bunch of commodity hard disks and sell hundreds of machines from the one copy you bought on the single cheapo Apple computer you bought.
First-sale allows you to sell that one copy, or possibly put it in one new machine, not open up a distribution center.
Psystar's boneheaded defense was that first-sale lets you, vis-a-vis, buy a $16 factory-recorded CD and a spool of a hundred 50-cent CD-Rs, and sell the "new product" at half price, turning a $7.50 profit on each disc. They were wrong. Copyright law doesn't look kindly upon that.
And that is why Psystar got pounded. If they bought a hundred cheap iMacs, modded the software, and put it in exactly a hundred high-end workstations, first-sale might have a ghost of a chance of applying.
But then, you'd have to be an individual reselling, and not be a reseller business, incorporated to turn a profit on a derivative work, which you don't have the rights to and is also a violation of copyright. This is what you think is "stupid." That I should be able to, say, delete one of the mediocre filler tracks off of that $16 dollar CD and sell it for $8. It doesn't matter if I convert them to MP3's first, etc., I'm selling them, as a business, which makes me a distributor.
It's copyright. You can't copy it for resale. You can't make a derivative work for resale if you don't have the consent of the rights holder. You can't redistribute it for substantial gain. Copyright law has been that way since long before the DMCA. The operative words are "resale" and "substantial gain." This is why it's a summary judgment, because Psystar didn't have a case. They were like the New York Yankees showing up to play water polo here.
What Apple did is in accordance with the law, and it's their duty to their shareholders to defend their rights. I won't go so far as to claim that they were "right," or "good," but if folks don't like this, then they need work to change the law, because that's what the law says.
In my experience, the law is almost always "stupid," or at the very least it's blunt. It doesn't exist as a "common sense way to live" and while the courts are a system, the law is not. The law is there to arbitrate conflicts when all other options have broken down, with little to no room for compromise so there is a clear "winner." If you want compromise, or sense, you settle outside of court as soon as possible. We should not look to the courts for guidance, we should look to the courts for a clear redress of our grievances when all else fails.
--
Toro
a realistic joystick
What is that then? A Bluetooth device? Do you swing your iPhone around like a stick while trying to look at your waggling screen?
Do you plug your surplus Atari VCS stick into the serial port via a 9-pin D-SUB port converter?
I'm going to go with David Lynch on this one, who famously ranted that "you can't watch a movie on a fscking phone." You can't have a "realistic" joystick on a phone, because an image of a joystick is not realistic, nor does it even approximate the input device. It's a neat toy, not a reproduction heirloom.
Why do I nitpick? Frankly I don't like reading obvious marketing text in my summary. This goes for "beautifully crafted" too. Report, don't advertise, please.
--
Toro
There is a solution to this: Pirate Party in 2012. That's the damned solution. Shame on any municipality for claiming that laws, which are in the public domain by definition, can be restricted from copy, as a product. The laws to which we assent must be accessible to anyone affected by them upon demand, and furnished conveniently at cost, in order for us to assent to them and in order for justice to function, even limping and lopsided as it has been for the past few decades.
As regards the law, we are entitled citizens, not privileged consumers. If there is no law to that effect, it should be added to the Freedom of Information Act immediately and become a Federal mandate.
Barring that, or uniform state code of some kind, the solution is very simple: If government will not grant us justice nor peace, as is its duty, we will steal it. Copyright infringement will become a service, not a crime. By whatever means necessary.
Your move Schenectady.
--
Toro