The 'places' column seeems to be just a vertical version of the finder toolbar, which goes back to the NextStep shelf, which was introduced about 15 years ago.
Although a smaller fraction of the data produced today will be readable in the future, there's so much more data produced that you wouldn't want to read much of it anyway. The fraction of it that's produced on long-lasting media like acid-free paper is still quite a lot.
The original post was about two separate things: copyright law and "havens". On the latter, let me quote from a technocrat.net comment about "microstates" such as the Cayman Islands which make a business out of having lax disclosure rules, no taxes, etc.:
What you'll find is that it will mainly end up benefitting shifty corporations and individuals that want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes or want to hide unwholesome sources of income. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, for one example, almost completely avoids paying any tax whatsoever, mainly by using offshore tax havens. It has paid no British corporation tax in the last 11 years, despite making profits of 2 billion dollars.
However, these sorts of havens exist only to the extent that they are tolerated by governments of states with major economies. After all, any
advantage that a company receives from such havens can be shut down by the countries they do business in, through embargo. You can be sure that if the volume of transactions channeled through havens
gets too large, and governments so choose, the Rupert Murdochs of the world will have to choose one or the other: do business in the Cayman Islands, or do business in the US or Europe.
Some reading:
The Observer (UK), April 2, 2000, Pg. 1:
"Trouble in paradise: Michael Ashcroft has one. So have Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson. In fact, no self-respecting plutocrat is
without an offshore tax haven. But, as John Sweeney reports from the Turks and Caicos Islands, these financial refuges are finally under
threat"
The patent office should be
quasi-privatized, like the post office, and allowed to keep
whatever revenue it collects, and not have its budget gutted by
congress for other programs.
No, this is just the problem. A few years ago Congress changed the way the patent office is funded. Instead of being granted a certain amount based on how many applications are reviewed, the system was supposed to become self-funding. But since more money is taken in from accepted patents, patent examiners were trained to view applicants as "customers" and operated under the idea that their job was to help their customers get patents.
It doesn't even need to be restated that this has been a disaster, and it is a major cause of the patent system being in crisis. The funding of the patent office should be entirely unconnected with how many patents are actually granted.
The folks at the Hypercar center, an institute to promote fuel-efficient, technologically advanced cars, said it best:
Hypercars don't solve the
basic problems of too
many miles driven by too
many people in too many
cars. Indeed, they
may-without good
accompanying public
policy-worsen these
problems by making
driving even cheaper and
more attractive.
Many of the social costs of driving have less to do with
fuel use than with congestion, road-building, lost time,
accidents, urban and suburban sprawl, and other side
effects of auto dependence. Of those social costs, a sum
estimated to be approaching $1 trillion a year-perhaps a
seventh of U.S. GNP-is borne by everyone but not
reflected in drivers' direct costs. Hypercars would cut
those costs perhaps in half, but half of such a big number
is still far too big.
It's hardly
surprising that doubled U.S.
new-car efficiency over the
past two decades has been
offset by more cars and
driving, which also dilute the
benefits of cleaner and safer
cars. Global car registrations
are growing more than twice as fast as population; Hypercars would do nothing about that
alarming trend except slightly accelerate it.
Solving transportation problems without creating new
ones requires not only having great cars but also being
able to leave them at home most of the time. That in turn
requires real competition between all modes of access,
including public transportation and alternatives to
physical mobility (such as telecommunications). And of
course the best form of access is already being where
you want to be-achievable only through sensible land
use.
If a company wants to do business in a country, it has to abide by that country's competition laws. Hence, for example, the EU even has the power to regulate mergers between two US companies like Mobil and Exxon if they do significant business in Europe.
While you're thinking about "genetic manipulation of human beings", you should also learn about the closely related topic of eugenics. I would urge you to learn about the history of eugenics through this century, and the role of eugenic thinking in the Holocaust.
ABC News is re porting that Microsoft is denying Gates ever said this. From the article: "Microsoft Corp. strongly denied that Chairman Bill Gates had told Bloomberg Television in an interview that he would be willing to open the Windows operating system source code antitrust suit with the U.S. Justice Department. "Bill did not make any of the comments attributed to him about the settlement," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said. "The comments they said Bill made are just not true."
But it isn't a monopoly like the USPS. Any competitors are welcome to enter the market. Our capital market is pretty good--if your idea is sound, you should be able to get backing for it.
This is true only if there are no barriers to entry. But key pair authorization has a huge barrier to entry: you are essentially paying for the trust people have in the company, and trust begets more trust.
It's the same reason why you won't have much hope starting your own general auction site: EBay is valuable precisely because lots of people use it already. The more people use it, the more valuable it is, and the more new users it will attract.
I like that - "the free world" as a term for all people who use free software. We should try to establish it in that meaning.
Probability is 1 in 1,000,000,000
on
Killer Asteroid
·
· Score: 1
"This results in an estimate of the probability for this impact of the order of 10^-9. The possibility of such an impact could be frightening, but if we assume that the probability of an impact by an undiscovered 1 km asteroid is of the order of per year [11], the probability of an impact by 1999 AN in 2039 is less than the probability of being hit by an unknown asteroid within the next few hours. "
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a lot longer than that. Actually, the level of global economic integration is not much higher today than in 1913.
The 'places' column seeems to be just a vertical version of the finder toolbar, which goes back to the NextStep shelf, which was introduced about 15 years ago.
Apple is tops in hardware failure. Way to go Apple!
This should be saved for posterity.
Face it, Slashdot: you've been hacked by the "Interactive Advertising Bureau".
The next phase: the article's words are randomly hidden throughout advertisements. Piece together the words, and you get to read the article!
Please note that RMS didn't post the above - I asked him. Someone is using his name. However, he agrees with the sentiment.
Although a smaller fraction of the data produced today will be readable in the future, there's so much more data produced that you wouldn't want to read much of it anyway. The fraction of it that's produced on long-lasting media like acid-free paper is still quite a lot.
What you'll find is that it will mainly end up benefitting shifty corporations and individuals that want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes or want to hide unwholesome sources of income. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, for one example, almost completely avoids paying any tax whatsoever, mainly by using offshore tax havens. It has paid no British corporation tax in the last 11 years, despite making profits of 2 billion dollars.
However, these sorts of havens exist only to the extent that they are tolerated by governments of states with major economies. After all, any advantage that a company receives from such havens can be shut down by the countries they do business in, through embargo. You can be sure that if the volume of transactions channeled through havens gets too large, and governments so choose, the Rupert Murdochs of the world will have to choose one or the other: do business in the Cayman Islands, or do business in the US or Europe.
Some reading:
The Observer (UK), April 2, 2000, Pg. 1:
"Trouble in paradise: Michael Ashcroft has one. So have Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson. In fact, no self-respecting plutocrat is without an offshore tax haven. But, as John Sweeney reports from the Turks and Caicos Islands, these financial refuges are finally under threat"
The Observer (UK), March 28, 1999, P. 23
No, this is just the problem. A few years ago Congress changed the way the patent office is funded. Instead of being granted a certain amount based on how many applications are reviewed, the system was supposed to become self-funding. But since more money is taken in from accepted patents, patent examiners were trained to view applicants as "customers" and operated under the idea that their job was to help their customers get patents.
It doesn't even need to be restated that this has been a disaster, and it is a major cause of the patent system being in crisis. The funding of the patent office should be entirely unconnected with how many patents are actually granted.
Hypercars don't solve the basic problems of too many miles driven by too many people in too many cars. Indeed, they may-without good accompanying public policy-worsen these problems by making driving even cheaper and more attractive.
Many of the social costs of driving have less to do with fuel use than with congestion, road-building, lost time, accidents, urban and suburban sprawl, and other side effects of auto dependence. Of those social costs, a sum estimated to be approaching $1 trillion a year-perhaps a seventh of U.S. GNP-is borne by everyone but not reflected in drivers' direct costs. Hypercars would cut those costs perhaps in half, but half of such a big number is still far too big.
It's hardly surprising that doubled U.S. new-car efficiency over the past two decades has been offset by more cars and driving, which also dilute the benefits of cleaner and safer cars. Global car registrations are growing more than twice as fast as population; Hypercars would do nothing about that alarming trend except slightly accelerate it.
Solving transportation problems without creating new ones requires not only having great cars but also being able to leave them at home most of the time. That in turn requires real competition between all modes of access, including public transportation and alternatives to physical mobility (such as telecommunications). And of course the best form of access is already being where you want to be-achievable only through sensible land use.
If a company wants to do business in a country, it has to abide by that country's competition laws. Hence, for example, the EU even has the power to regulate mergers between two US companies like Mobil and Exxon if they do significant business in Europe.
Do you mean Devanagari?
Yes, I remember running CzarWars. Is the source available? Would you consider releasing it?
While you're thinking about "genetic manipulation of human beings", you should also learn about the closely related topic of eugenics. I would urge you to learn about the history of eugenics through this century, and the role of eugenic thinking in the Holocaust.
ABC News is re porting that Microsoft is denying Gates ever said this. From the article: "Microsoft Corp. strongly denied that Chairman Bill Gates had told Bloomberg Television in an interview that he would be willing to open the Windows operating system source code antitrust suit with the U.S. Justice Department. "Bill did not make any of the comments attributed to him about the settlement," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said. "The comments they said Bill made are just not true."
But it isn't a monopoly like the USPS. Any competitors are welcome to enter the market. Our capital market is pretty good--if your idea is sound, you should be able to get backing for it.
This is true only if there are no barriers to entry. But key pair authorization has a huge barrier to entry: you are essentially paying for the trust people have in the company, and trust begets more trust.
It's the same reason why you won't have much hope starting your own general auction site: EBay is valuable precisely because lots of people use it already. The more people use it, the more valuable it is, and the more new users it will attract.
-Erik
I like that - "the free world" as a term for all people who use free software. We should try to establish it in that meaning.
"This results in an
estimate of the probability for this impact of the order of 10^-9. The
possibility of such an impact could be frightening, but if we
assume that the probability of an impact by an undiscovered 1 km
asteroid is of the order of per year [11], the probability of an
impact by 1999 AN in 2039 is less than the probability of being
hit by an unknown asteroid within the next few hours. "