My first (and only, so far) experience with these machines had the machine highlight 3 areas, the button on the front of my pants (no belt, just the plastic button) and both my cargo pockets, 1 of which contained my wallet, the other contained a single piece of paper folded over. If these machines don't like things in your pockets, you should be told to empty your pockets first! Though the person running the machine did admit that the machine doesn't like cargo pockets, even empty. I think the biggest surprise was that once the machine detected a problem with my cargo pockets, the person running it allowed me to empty my pockets for him without anyone groping me. I found that amazingly civilized of them. Most of the time they insist on reaching in to your pockets instead of letting you empty them.
Are you violating the Bill of Rights by seizing private (intellectual) property?
And that sentence right there shows the biggest mistake ever made in the history of the regulaltion of ideas. This whole concept that an idea or thought can be property of any form is beyond ludicrous and needs to be stamped out hard.
Would we be required to either let existing patents expire, or to pay off the owners?
The government can do anything they like. If they choose to say that starting tomorrow there is no such thing as a patent, it's done. and it will only be a few hundred years too late.
Could we use the example of ex-post-facto copyright extensions to ex-post-facto cut terms?
Could we declare all copyrights invalid due to the ex-post-facto extensions, and then reinstate them for a limited time?
again, if the government says copyright ends tomorrow, it ends tomorrow. There is no reason to do otherwise. You can't retroactively change how likely someone was to create the work, and that's the only justification given for copyright in the first place (which has been proven over and over again not to work)
I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of abolition of the IP regime, but...
I believe that copyrights on software should expire faster than patents on devices that do not follow Moore's Law. I believe copyrights on software should last 10 years.
The first sentence is directly contradicted by the second. Abolition, and 10 years, are not synonyms.
But why don't they need to go? Many studies show how harmful they are to their stated purposes, and no convincing arguments have shown any societal benefit to their existence. So why tweak something that has no benefit when you could remove it instead and benefit all of mankind?
Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because NASA is a federal agency and it's wrong for public money to fund research in to inventions that then aren't available to the public. Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because it would make it impossible for someone else to improve on it for a couple of decades while it's still under patent Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because they actually RTFA (or even TFS) and realized what harm patents do to society as a whole...
The USA famously ignores international treaties whenever it feels like, and all the treaties in question on this subject originated in the USA anyway. The USA could end patents worldwide overnight if they wanted to.
Once upon a time you had to have a working model to get a patent, and your patent had to describe it in enough detail to reproduce it. That is the very least we should require if the patent system were to continue. Abolishing it altogether is a far more sensible option though.
Oh don't be silly, that would never happen. You make it sound like the USA would be alone, we all know Canada, the UK, Australlia, and several other countries would all be right there with the USA stuck in the third world.
And many many more guns are oppressing you right now. Advocating armed rebellion against the united states military is a stupid idea. They are very good at following orders, and they are better armed, better trained, and more numerous than any start to a grassroots revolution.
You may have the right to bear (certain) arms, but they will do you absolutely no good in a fight with a modern government.
Basically Aereo invented the VCR on the internet (nothing new to see here) But that's ok, because the media industry has invented lawsuits about the internet which is truly novel...
What difference does it make if I press record and it lands on a tape in my living room, or a server accessible from my living room. it's the same thing!
On a side note, this exact technical ridiculousness caused the company I work for to delay launch of a PVR service for several years and eventually forced us to get new hardware and put a physical PVR in each customer's house instead of using our existing set top boxes with a software tweak and a server on our end. The network version had all sorts of advantages going for it, but archaic laws forced the other version instead.
Thank you for pointing this out, I just had a very good read because I'd never heard of that act before. It did make me weep for the future of humanity though...
Hardly, they love changes in medium, they can sell everyone the same thing all over again, at a higher price, and with lower amounts going to the artists. the recording industry whole heartedly embraced the CD for that reason. If these guys has their way we'd have a new medium every tuesday. We'd also never have the recording abilities for said medium.
Public opinion will stop a war in any country. The only question is how strong the public opinion needs to get before it happens. In a true democracy 50%+1 people need to think it's a bad idea. In a full dictatorship a much larger percentage of the people need to feel it's bad enough to risk their own lives to counter it. Most countries are somewhere between those two places. (though if anyone knows of an actual democracy I'd love to see it in action some day!)
If you sniff my personal email password while I'm using a work computer, that's my fault for breaking company policy and accessing personal email from a work resource. I would be ok if you fired me for that offence.
If you use that password to log in to my account without my permission you are breaking several laws and you deserve to be prosecuted under them.
I know it's a pretty fine distinction, but I did note both those points in my original post.
A more likely reaction would be that you don't fire me, and in exchange I don't prosecute you. Instead I learn my lesson, change my passwords, and quit using work resources for personal purposes.
On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company
I'm not talking harm to companies, I'm talking harm to society, and to their own members.
examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them
Unions have repeatedly failed to stop any of the behaviour you use in your examples, however it's all illegal under federal and provincial laws, and the employees have recourse through the labour relations board, but only if they aren't unionized. If unionized they have to hope that their union will take up their appeal (which depends on the priorities of the union leaders, and their perception of you as a good union member)
in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job?
Unfortunately you need to look up union recruiting tactics. Unions are under no obligation to act truthfully, or morally during recruiting drives, nor is it necessary to have a vote before a union is certified. Typical union tactics include outright lies that people will get a raise if they join (unions can't guarantee that), or stating such garbage as that it won't cost anything because union dues are optional, or all sorts of other lies. Of course the most despicable tactic, widely used by unions is sending people in to your house and refusing to leave unless you sign a union card. which once signed can not be revoked and is all that is needed to certify a union. Unfortunately the process for decertifying a union is far more onerous.
Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice.
Which has not stopped you from lying and stating that it is possible. you sound like a union recruiting drive.
You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post.
which only shows that you have never even glanced at the law, nor have you dealt with it in any way. Your refusal to back down on this point further clarifies your stance as a typical union goon. spouting lies and refusing to bow to superior knowledge.
I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know.
Then quit repeating what you don't know with the implication that it is the truth. you are wrong in every single way on this point. you need to quit repeating it as you may cause someone some real financial harm if they believe you.
Where I live there are very specific things that companies are and aren't allowed to even ask during the hiring process, and I would be very surprised if this didn't fall in to the "aren't allowed" category. I'm allowed to volunteer information, but they aren't even allowed to ask for such things as age, marital status, sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious beliefs (probably others as well) now some are hard to hide in an interview, such as gender, approximate age, and skin colour (indicator of race) but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to ask. If I say, "btw, I'm 30 years old" that's ok. but if they ask "how old are you?" they've broken the law before I even contemplate answering.
And I must say it's even harder to take someone seriously when they go about spouting off falsehoods about the legal status of dues payments. Research the law and you will find there is no way to avoid union dues in a unionized company in Canada. Please quit propagating this falsehood. I have researched this extensively, and your assertion that you can get out of paying union dues is an outright lie.
I will recognize the good unions brought to society over 100 years ago. I will also recognize that since the introduction of provincial and federal labour laws they have done far more harm than good in the private sector. (Public sector unions are a different issue, and there are arguments to be made on both sides of that one)
No, you're getting trounced in Afghanistan because of public opinion. Your government has shown time and again they don't care about the cost of it, but the people do care about the lives lost, and they don't compare it to car wrecks.
Public opinion is the only thing that usually stops wars, and while some of that is cost, much of it is lives lost, eliminating the risk to lives on your end makes it much easier to sell it to the public. And making war easier to sell to the people is never a good thing.
maybe I gave him too much credit, but as a white male approaching middle age, I took no offence, because I took it to be a subset of middle age white guys, and not all of us.
His comment was no more racist than commenting that people in the KKK tend to be white. it doesn't mean white people are bad, only that people in that bad organization tend to be white. We know what demographics in the UK and the US tend to fear "immigrants, gays, atheists, and women" and somehow it rarely intersects with those who fall in to those categories. That doesn't mean middle-aged white men are evil, it only means that that particular type of evil person tends to be in that category (there are many other evil categories to cover pretty much every other societal group too, so it's not just middle aged white people who are evil, there is evil pretty much everywhere)
Exactly this. Anyone who thinks war will be fought by humans in planes/spacecraft in the future is deluding themselves. In fact this is going to become a big societal problem going forward. How do you discourage world war 3 when there is almost no risk of your soldiers being hurt in the fighting?
Sure from a sci-fi TV show/movie point of view I love the aircraft carrier in space genre. That doesn't mean I think it has any realism whatsoever.
The unions were pretty big against the latest bill in parliament that would force them to open their books to their members.
If you want to read up on the other decision referenced, it was in regards to mandatory dues in the quebec construction unions.
As a big union supporter, I'm sure you're already familiar with Rand's judgement.
If you can find me a court decision, or any piece of law allowing someone who doesn't want to join a union to not pay dues in Canada, please put it forward, there are thousands of people interested. Many of us never chose to be represented by a union, were certified through backroom antics instead of free votes, and are tired of spending thousands of dollars a year to an organization who deliberately are acting against us at every turn.
We did try something different. That's why we run Android. Most people I've talked to who run Android have compared features, functionality. and usability of all available platforms and chose Android. most of the people I've talked to who own an iphone heard that iphones were great and bought one. no comparisons done.
Slashdot Mirror
My first (and only, so far) experience with these machines had the machine highlight 3 areas, the button on the front of my pants (no belt, just the plastic button) and both my cargo pockets, 1 of which contained my wallet, the other contained a single piece of paper folded over.
If these machines don't like things in your pockets, you should be told to empty your pockets first!
Though the person running the machine did admit that the machine doesn't like cargo pockets, even empty. I think the biggest surprise was that once the machine detected a problem with my cargo pockets, the person running it allowed me to empty my pockets for him without anyone groping me. I found that amazingly civilized of them. Most of the time they insist on reaching in to your pockets instead of letting you empty them.
So your own experience proves that getting a patent doesn't help anyway... and you still think they help you?
Software patent eh? and you claim to be an innovator... yeah... uh-huh.. sure...
Are you violating the Bill of Rights by seizing private (intellectual) property?
And that sentence right there shows the biggest mistake ever made in the history of the regulaltion of ideas. This whole concept that an idea or thought can be property of any form is beyond ludicrous and needs to be stamped out hard.
Would we be required to either let existing patents expire, or to pay off the owners?
The government can do anything they like. If they choose to say that starting tomorrow there is no such thing as a patent, it's done. and it will only be a few hundred years too late.
Could we use the example of ex-post-facto copyright extensions to ex-post-facto cut terms?
Could we declare all copyrights invalid due to the ex-post-facto extensions, and then reinstate them for a limited time?
again, if the government says copyright ends tomorrow, it ends tomorrow. There is no reason to do otherwise. You can't retroactively change how likely someone was to create the work, and that's the only justification given for copyright in the first place (which has been proven over and over again not to work)
I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of abolition of the IP regime, but...
I believe that copyrights on software should expire faster than patents on devices that do not follow Moore's Law. I believe copyrights on software should last 10 years.
The first sentence is directly contradicted by the second. Abolition, and 10 years, are not synonyms.
But why don't they need to go? Many studies show how harmful they are to their stated purposes, and no convincing arguments have shown any societal benefit to their existence. So why tweak something that has no benefit when you could remove it instead and benefit all of mankind?
Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because NASA is a federal agency and it's wrong for public money to fund research in to inventions that then aren't available to the public.
Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because it would make it impossible for someone else to improve on it for a couple of decades while it's still under patent
Or maybe they think NASA shouldn't be able to patent a working Warp Drive because they actually RTFA (or even TFS) and realized what harm patents do to society as a whole...
The USA famously ignores international treaties whenever it feels like, and all the treaties in question on this subject originated in the USA anyway. The USA could end patents worldwide overnight if they wanted to.
Once upon a time you had to have a working model to get a patent, and your patent had to describe it in enough detail to reproduce it.
That is the very least we should require if the patent system were to continue. Abolishing it altogether is a far more sensible option though.
Would it not have been even better if Hitler had been unable to sell his own people on it?
If you're right, you won't need your own weapons.
If you're wrong, your own weapons won't help.
Oh don't be silly, that would never happen. You make it sound like the USA would be alone, we all know Canada, the UK, Australlia, and several other countries would all be right there with the USA stuck in the third world.
And many many more guns are oppressing you right now. Advocating armed rebellion against the united states military is a stupid idea. They are very good at following orders, and they are better armed, better trained, and more numerous than any start to a grassroots revolution.
You may have the right to bear (certain) arms, but they will do you absolutely no good in a fight with a modern government.
Basically Aereo invented the VCR on the internet (nothing new to see here)
But that's ok, because the media industry has invented lawsuits about the internet which is truly novel...
What difference does it make if I press record and it lands on a tape in my living room, or a server accessible from my living room. it's the same thing!
On a side note, this exact technical ridiculousness caused the company I work for to delay launch of a PVR service for several years and eventually forced us to get new hardware and put a physical PVR in each customer's house instead of using our existing set top boxes with a software tweak and a server on our end. The network version had all sorts of advantages going for it, but archaic laws forced the other version instead.
Thank you for pointing this out, I just had a very good read because I'd never heard of that act before. It did make me weep for the future of humanity though...
Unfortunately this strange doctrine has become supported by both statute and common law.
Hardly, they love changes in medium, they can sell everyone the same thing all over again, at a higher price, and with lower amounts going to the artists. the recording industry whole heartedly embraced the CD for that reason. If these guys has their way we'd have a new medium every tuesday. We'd also never have the recording abilities for said medium.
Public opinion will stop a war in any country. The only question is how strong the public opinion needs to get before it happens.
In a true democracy 50%+1 people need to think it's a bad idea. In a full dictatorship a much larger percentage of the people need to feel it's bad enough to risk their own lives to counter it.
Most countries are somewhere between those two places. (though if anyone knows of an actual democracy I'd love to see it in action some day!)
If you sniff my personal email password while I'm using a work computer, that's my fault for breaking company policy and accessing personal email from a work resource. I would be ok if you fired me for that offence.
If you use that password to log in to my account without my permission you are breaking several laws and you deserve to be prosecuted under them.
I know it's a pretty fine distinction, but I did note both those points in my original post.
A more likely reaction would be that you don't fire me, and in exchange I don't prosecute you. Instead I learn my lesson, change my passwords, and quit using work resources for personal purposes.
On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company
I'm not talking harm to companies, I'm talking harm to society, and to their own members.
examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them
Unions have repeatedly failed to stop any of the behaviour you use in your examples, however it's all illegal under federal and provincial laws, and the employees have recourse through the labour relations board, but only if they aren't unionized. If unionized they have to hope that their union will take up their appeal (which depends on the priorities of the union leaders, and their perception of you as a good union member)
in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job?
Unfortunately you need to look up union recruiting tactics. Unions are under no obligation to act truthfully, or morally during recruiting drives, nor is it necessary to have a vote before a union is certified. Typical union tactics include outright lies that people will get a raise if they join (unions can't guarantee that), or stating such garbage as that it won't cost anything because union dues are optional, or all sorts of other lies. Of course the most despicable tactic, widely used by unions is sending people in to your house and refusing to leave unless you sign a union card. which once signed can not be revoked and is all that is needed to certify a union. Unfortunately the process for decertifying a union is far more onerous.
Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice.
Which has not stopped you from lying and stating that it is possible. you sound like a union recruiting drive.
You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post.
which only shows that you have never even glanced at the law, nor have you dealt with it in any way. Your refusal to back down on this point further clarifies your stance as a typical union goon. spouting lies and refusing to bow to superior knowledge.
I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know.
Then quit repeating what you don't know with the implication that it is the truth. you are wrong in every single way on this point. you need to quit repeating it as you may cause someone some real financial harm if they believe you.
Where I live there are very specific things that companies are and aren't allowed to even ask during the hiring process, and I would be very surprised if this didn't fall in to the "aren't allowed" category.
I'm allowed to volunteer information, but they aren't even allowed to ask for such things as age, marital status, sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious beliefs (probably others as well) now some are hard to hide in an interview, such as gender, approximate age, and skin colour (indicator of race) but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to ask.
If I say, "btw, I'm 30 years old" that's ok. but if they ask "how old are you?" they've broken the law before I even contemplate answering.
And I must say it's even harder to take someone seriously when they go about spouting off falsehoods about the legal status of dues payments. Research the law and you will find there is no way to avoid union dues in a unionized company in Canada. Please quit propagating this falsehood. I have researched this extensively, and your assertion that you can get out of paying union dues is an outright lie.
I will recognize the good unions brought to society over 100 years ago. I will also recognize that since the introduction of provincial and federal labour laws they have done far more harm than good in the private sector. (Public sector unions are a different issue, and there are arguments to be made on both sides of that one)
No, you're getting trounced in Afghanistan because of public opinion. Your government has shown time and again they don't care about the cost of it, but the people do care about the lives lost, and they don't compare it to car wrecks.
Public opinion is the only thing that usually stops wars, and while some of that is cost, much of it is lives lost, eliminating the risk to lives on your end makes it much easier to sell it to the public. And making war easier to sell to the people is never a good thing.
maybe I gave him too much credit, but as a white male approaching middle age, I took no offence, because I took it to be a subset of middle age white guys, and not all of us.
His comment was no more racist than commenting that people in the KKK tend to be white. it doesn't mean white people are bad, only that people in that bad organization tend to be white. We know what demographics in the UK and the US tend to fear "immigrants, gays, atheists, and women" and somehow it rarely intersects with those who fall in to those categories. That doesn't mean middle-aged white men are evil, it only means that that particular type of evil person tends to be in that category (there are many other evil categories to cover pretty much every other societal group too, so it's not just middle aged white people who are evil, there is evil pretty much everywhere)
Exactly this. Anyone who thinks war will be fought by humans in planes/spacecraft in the future is deluding themselves. In fact this is going to become a big societal problem going forward. How do you discourage world war 3 when there is almost no risk of your soldiers being hurt in the fighting?
Sure from a sci-fi TV show/movie point of view I love the aircraft carrier in space genre. That doesn't mean I think it has any realism whatsoever.
The unions were pretty big against the latest bill in parliament that would force them to open their books to their members.
If you want to read up on the other decision referenced, it was in regards to mandatory dues in the quebec construction unions.
As a big union supporter, I'm sure you're already familiar with Rand's judgement.
If you can find me a court decision, or any piece of law allowing someone who doesn't want to join a union to not pay dues in Canada, please put it forward, there are thousands of people interested. Many of us never chose to be represented by a union, were certified through backroom antics instead of free votes, and are tired of spending thousands of dollars a year to an organization who deliberately are acting against us at every turn.
We did try something different. That's why we run Android. Most people I've talked to who run Android have compared features, functionality. and usability of all available platforms and chose Android. most of the people I've talked to who own an iphone heard that iphones were great and bought one. no comparisons done.