There is NOTHING wrong with killing someone to protect your life or the life of another person, so killing the scum running the death camps would be justified. Of course the death camps had nothing to do with why that war was fought. The wholesale murders started after the war did. That was fought on the princeple of self defense of defending yourself from attack.
I'm well aware that a law can be wrong. A lot of confusion is caused by the term copyright. If you read what I have written my point concerns the DISTRUBITION of copyrighted material. You have the right to copy as much IP as you feel like, you just don't have the right to freely distrubite the copies you make. Copying is fair use, distrubiting what you have coppied is not.
The first admendment protects free speech. The second admendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. You can't weaken one right without weakening all rights. ignoring either admendment weakens the other.
It's amusing to see people who are willing to ignore the Second admendment start yelling about the Bill of Rights when someone wants to ignore the first admendment.
DRM is about enforcing copyright law, A person's right to control something they created, and copyright is authorized in the Constitution. My view of DRM is that it does violate fair use, but it damn hard to argue a case of rights when you aren't willing to respect the rights of others, and the "file sharers" are showing contempt for the rights of copyright holders.
I Have never been an advocate of the "elastic" Constitution. I feel that we should follow the intents of the framers of the Constitution or follow the procedures for amending it. An "elastic" constitution in effect means it can be "amended" at will by changing the interpation.
The clause you mentioned clearly sets a basis for reasonable limited copyright laws. I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstituional.
A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.
Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law. If someone wanted to violate the present copyright law for the purpose of bringing a test case before the courts, I would be in full agreement with them.
However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it. This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show. It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.
Mass distrubation of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.
How many times has it been pointed out on/. that it's wrong to ban a tool because someone misuses it when P2P networks and "Piracy" are being discussed? A Gun is just another tool, subject to proper use or misuse.
1) The "Content Cartels are full of shit when they claim "piracy" costs them umpteen Billion Dollars. Just because you download a song dosen't mean you would have bought the CD. On a P2P you might say I'll get this one and this one and this one. Few people can afford to go into a record store and just grab any CD that catches their eye.
2) The "Sharing" advocates are full of shit when they claim it dosen't cost the content providers anything because some of the people downloading material are doing it to avoid paying for something they would have bought if they couldn't get it for free.
3) Nobody knows if additional sales generated by someone "sampling" music outweighs sales lost to people who refuse to buy anything.
4) Copyright holders ARE the only people with the LEGAL right to distribute copyrighted material.
5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Illegally distributing copyrighted materials makes it damn hard to take the moral highground.
Why not? Both have legitimate uses. The Tommy gun was never intended for use by gangsters. Thompson was a big law and order man. He was aiming at selling his gun to collectors, as the ultimate in personal protection from criminals and for use by the US Military. He was appalled that his gun was used by criminals. If Thompson had lived to see his gun play a role in defeating the Nazism he would have been delighted to see it used for one of the purposes he intended it to be used for.
You are following the lead of the RIAA. You are calling the Tool evil because SOME people misuse it. Both a Gun and a CD writer are material objects incapable of commiting good or evil. It takes a person to use a device for evil purposes.
Fine, another example. When I was in Singapore in the mid 80's It was against the law to sell Chewing gum. Some people spit it out on the sidewalks and the city was tired of cleaning up after slobs, so they banned gum for everybody.
When you abuse a right you invite the enaction of stronger laws, and it fucks up the people who aren't abusing the right too.
75 years ago it was legal to buy a Thompson machine gun in the United States. Some people bought them because it was a neat toy, and they never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland hits and armed robery.
The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.
The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.
Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.
The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this soulation to their problem, but I blame the "file sharers" that are ignoring the current laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing this draconian approach to IP protection about.
Too much competition means little or no profits. Small profits means no investment in new technology. No profits means cutting costs on things like maintance.
How is an aging poorly maintained infrastructure "good for consumers"?
What are consumers going to consume if they destroy the producers reason to produce by eliminating profits?
" Interesting, and if I don't like my telephone company I should start my own ??"
Yes, or switch providers "And if I don't like Microsoft I should start my own software company ??"
Yes, or buy from another software company
Now for my question, what makes you think you have the right to impose your will on Slashdot, or your Teleco, or Microsoft?
If Billy Borg wanted to buy into the Telecoms, WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first? Why didn't he just buy the stock earlier this week?
This sounds more likely. Buffett decided the stock was undervalued after the beating it's taken lately and a good longterm investment. A Hack writter noticed Buffett's investment and wanted to grab page hits for the online version of the story, so he invented some half ass conspircy to attract the paranoid.
Trademarks only cover ONE field. It's perfectly legal to apply for the trademark "Canadian" in any field that does not compete with Molsen's swill. GM can trademark a "Canadian" automobile, and Molsen can trademark a "Century" Beer and they are just as valid as the trademarks for for Canadian beer and Century cars. IF the person in question had a trademark on "Canadian" in any field besides beverages his trademark is just as valid as Molsen's.
" Do these waste disposal fees come anywhere near to covering the projected costs of disposing of all the waste, and decommissioning said power plants?"
The original fee structure likely would have. After years of Activist induced delay they won't. Question who should pick up the tab? 1. Nuclear Industry (Not their fault) 2. Taxpayers (Not their fault) 3. Antinuke Activists (caused the delays)
"Fundamentally, they don't like ANY kind of power generation, but are too goddamned stupid to realize what life would be like without it. They think it would be like one big perpetual RenFaire, with themselves as the lords and ladies."
This is an accurate assement of many of the rank and file members of the green groups, however it is NOT true of the leadership. They are well aware of the energy shortage they would create. They are also well aware of the power they would have rationing energy in the shortage they would create. The enviroment is just an excuse. Political power is the goal.
"Just because they didn't want it in the first place doesn't make all of that accumlated waste disappear."
Reprocessing the spent fuel rods does make the some of the most hazzardous waste "disapear", but this option has been rejected by activists who don't want to see any improvement in the area of waste disposal because it undermines one of the reasons they use in their arguments against nuclear power.
"(The current political climate seems to assume that terrorists are hiding in every corner -- which makes it extremely doubtful that any new plants will be be approved.)"
The efforts of the anti-nuclear activists to undermine the economics of nuclear power have made it unlikely that any plants will be proposed for approval.
"Wow, isn't it easy to accuse someone of being a fear monger when you hide behind your assertion that whales are gay?"
ROFLMAO!!
It's been a long time since anybody fell for the anti-slogan slogan. Get a grip dude, it's a protest against political arguments that consist of little more than simplistic slogans and has been around for about 25 years.
"if you used your brain for one second, you'd realize that there is no one group of "anti-nuclear activists" who all think the same and suddenly pulled a 180. There are many groups of people all with their own opinions on the matter. There were activists who think that the government had to handle the disposal of the wastes, activists against a permanent central location in general, activists against Yucca mountain specifically. Not just one big "anti-nuclear" lump. NO ONE is "urging that the people they wanted to handle the waste refuse to do so." You've invented this situation in your mind to make it easier for you to justify your own feelings on the matter. (Besides, even if the "anti-nuclear activists" were inconsistant -- that's NOT an argument FOR yucca mountain at all. It's just juvenile activist-bashing). Think before you write in the future."
There are also activists who freely admit they'll use any tatic including playing one group against another in their crusade against nuclear power. Activists who filed frivilous lawsuits when plants were being constructed with the stated intent of making nuclear power uneconomical through construction delays. Activists who spread fear through outragous lies.
If you don't like me mentioning the crazies and the twofaced liars in your midst, then I suggest the antinuclear forces start denouncing them rather making use of them. They do little for your credibility.
"The anti-nuclear people NEVER WANTED NUCLEAR POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE."
Which points to the duplicity showed by them in suggesting the feds handle the waste in the first place. It was never more than aa attempt to trap the nuclear industry in a catch-22 situation. This kind of behavior is one of the reasons the anti-nuclear movement has so little credibility among people who bothered to investigate the facts.
"it's the government's job to find a perminent solution"
Well since the government has been collecting a waste disposal fee from the plants for years, it's hardly unreasonable for the nuclear industry to expect the government to spend the money on the disposal they have already charged for.
The anti-nuclear activists are the ones who originally said the nuclear industry couldn't be trusted to dispose of the wastes, and the government should handle it. Now that it's time for the government to live up to it's end of the bargain, suddenly we have anti-nuclear activists urging that the people they wanted to handle the waste refuse to do so.
Oh I forgot, SOME people with Mod points use them to try to keep others from reading posts they disagree with. Well attempted Censorship is easier than replying with words.
The real irony is Coal burning power plants emit MORE radiation than the Nuke plants! Coal contains traces of uranium. When it's burned the Organic matter is converted into CO2 concetrating the Uranium in the ash. Fly Ash from a Coal fired power plant results in a slight rise in the background radiation. Do a google search for radioavtive ash to check this out.
"Consider finding the ruins of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, even... they're going to be dangerous for a lot longer than the cities will be there"
I Have visited Nagasaki. It's a thriving modern city and the only "ruins" are the walls of an old fortress that were left in place as part of Peace Park a memorial to those who died in the bombing. The Park is 600 meters from ground zero, and is visited by thousands daily with ZERO danger from radiation.
However your post does serve as an excellant example of the mindless fear mongering that that antinuclear people use in place of facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware that a law can be wrong. A lot of confusion is caused by the term copyright. If you read what I have written my point concerns the DISTRUBITION of copyrighted material. You have the right to copy as much IP as you feel like, you just don't have the right to freely distrubite the copies you make. Copying is fair use, distrubiting what you have coppied is not.
It's amusing to see people who are willing to ignore the Second admendment start yelling about the Bill of Rights when someone wants to ignore the first admendment.
DRM is about enforcing copyright law, A person's right to control something they created, and copyright is authorized in the Constitution. My view of DRM is that it does violate fair use, but it damn hard to argue a case of rights when you aren't willing to respect the rights of others, and the "file sharers" are showing contempt for the rights of copyright holders.
The clause you mentioned clearly sets a basis for reasonable limited copyright laws. I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstituional.
A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.
Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law. If someone wanted to violate the present copyright law for the purpose of bringing a test case before the courts, I would be in full agreement with them.
However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it. This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show. It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.
Mass distrubation of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.
How many times has it been pointed out on /. that it's wrong to ban a tool because someone misuses it when P2P networks and "Piracy" are being discussed? A Gun is just another tool, subject to proper use or misuse.
2) The "Sharing" advocates are full of shit when they claim it dosen't cost the content providers anything because some of the people downloading material are doing it to avoid paying for something they would have bought if they couldn't get it for free.
3) Nobody knows if additional sales generated by someone "sampling" music outweighs sales lost to people who refuse to buy anything.
4) Copyright holders ARE the only people with the LEGAL right to distribute copyrighted material.
5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Illegally distributing copyrighted materials makes it damn hard to take the moral highground.
You are following the lead of the RIAA. You are calling the Tool evil because SOME people misuse it. Both a Gun and a CD writer are material objects incapable of commiting good or evil. It takes a person to use a device for evil purposes.
When you abuse a right you invite the enaction of stronger laws, and it fucks up the people who aren't abusing the right too.
The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.
The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.
Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.
The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this soulation to their problem, but I blame the "file sharers" that are ignoring the current laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing this draconian approach to IP protection about.
How is an aging poorly maintained infrastructure "good for consumers"?
What are consumers going to consume if they destroy the producers reason to produce by eliminating profits?
"Slashdot sucks. Get it?"
If it sux so bad why are you reading it rather than a site that dosen't suck, or perhaps starting a site that dosen't suck?
Yes, or switch providers
"And if I don't like Microsoft I should start my own software company ??"
Yes, or buy from another software company
Now for my question, what makes you think you have the right to impose your will on Slashdot, or your Teleco, or Microsoft?
This sounds more likely. Buffett decided the stock was undervalued after the beating it's taken lately and a good longterm investment. A Hack writter noticed Buffett's investment and wanted to grab page hits for the online version of the story, so he invented some half ass conspircy to attract the paranoid.
If you don't like which stories /. covers, then start your own site.
Trademarks only cover ONE field. It's perfectly legal to apply for the trademark "Canadian" in any field that does not compete with Molsen's swill. GM can trademark a "Canadian" automobile, and Molsen can trademark a "Century" Beer and they are just as valid as the trademarks for for Canadian beer and Century cars. IF the person in question had a trademark on "Canadian" in any field besides beverages his trademark is just as valid as Molsen's.
The original fee structure likely would have. After years of Activist induced delay they won't. Question who should pick up the tab?
1. Nuclear Industry (Not their fault)
2. Taxpayers (Not their fault)
3. Antinuke Activists (caused the delays)
I Vote for number 3
This is an accurate assement of many of the rank and file members of the green groups, however it is NOT true of the leadership. They are well aware of the energy shortage they would create. They are also well aware of the power they would have rationing energy in the shortage they would create. The enviroment is just an excuse. Political power is the goal.
Reprocessing the spent fuel rods does make the some of the most hazzardous waste "disapear", but this option has been rejected by activists who don't want to see any improvement in the area of waste disposal because it undermines one of the reasons they use in their arguments against nuclear power.
"(The current political climate seems to assume that terrorists are hiding in every corner -- which makes it extremely doubtful that any new plants will be be approved.)"
The efforts of the anti-nuclear activists to undermine the economics of nuclear power have made it unlikely that any plants will be proposed for approval.
ROFLMAO!!
It's been a long time since anybody fell for the anti-slogan slogan. Get a grip dude, it's a protest against political arguments that consist of little more than simplistic slogans and has been around for about 25 years.
There are also activists who freely admit they'll use any tatic including playing one group against another in their crusade against nuclear power. Activists who filed frivilous lawsuits when plants were being constructed with the stated intent of making nuclear power uneconomical through construction delays. Activists who spread fear through outragous lies.
If you don't like me mentioning the crazies and the twofaced liars in your midst, then I suggest the antinuclear forces start denouncing them rather making use of them. They do little for your credibility.
Which points to the duplicity showed by them in suggesting the feds handle the waste in the first place. It was never more than aa attempt to trap the nuclear industry in a catch-22 situation. This kind of behavior is one of the reasons the anti-nuclear movement has so little credibility among people who bothered to investigate the facts.
Well since the government has been collecting a waste disposal fee from the plants for years, it's hardly unreasonable for the nuclear industry to expect the government to spend the money on the disposal they have already charged for.
The anti-nuclear activists are the ones who originally said the nuclear industry couldn't be trusted to dispose of the wastes, and the government should handle it. Now that it's time for the government to live up to it's end of the bargain, suddenly we have anti-nuclear activists urging that the people they wanted to handle the waste refuse to do so.
Oh I forgot, SOME people with Mod points use them to try to keep others from reading posts they disagree with. Well attempted Censorship is easier than replying with words.
The real irony is Coal burning power plants emit MORE radiation than the Nuke plants! Coal contains traces of uranium. When it's burned the Organic matter is converted into CO2 concetrating the Uranium in the ash. Fly Ash from a Coal fired power plant results in a slight rise in the background radiation. Do a google search for radioavtive ash to check this out.
I Have visited Nagasaki. It's a thriving modern city and the only "ruins" are the walls of an old fortress that were left in place as part of Peace Park a memorial to those who died in the bombing. The Park is 600 meters from ground zero, and is visited by thousands daily with ZERO danger from radiation.
However your post does serve as an excellant example of the mindless fear mongering that that antinuclear people use in place of facts.