"You don't become an economic juggernaut by taking steps to cut yourself off from the rest of the world. "
Of what use is a standard developed in Japan or the United States when DVD players are still manufactured in China anyway? China has the power to put this new standard onto store shelves around the world, and the debate between content publishers and technology companies will seem moot when the consumers themselves are presented an option that is cheaper than both competitors (because there's no obnoxious licensing fees).
Both flavors of Western(-esque) corporations may want to use a format that lets them enact DRM or region control, but ultimately they will have to sell on a format that people will buy, or no format at all.
Personally, with my dissatisfaction with the interests involved in the BluRay vs. HD-DVD debate, I'm very interested to see what the PRC has to offer. The "communists" may finally show us how capitalism is supposed to work.
"Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider."
Assuming for the moment that these "contracts" actualy exist outside of publishers' heads, the only reason they exist is because Congress is constitutionally authorized to allow protection of intellectual property to begin with. It isn't a case of Congress giving more powers to the people but less power to the copyright holders, which, as representatives of the people (if only in name), is their prerogative.
There is no entitlement, no inherent right to intellectual property. And Congress has the right to trash these contracts just as it has the right to let hired killers break their contracts.
"The constitution does not prevent the government from passing a law banning marriage or driving a car."
Go read Article I, paying special attention to Section 8. What in there gives Congress the power to legislate in either of those two areas?
If nothing else it is a federal constitution, and anything that isn't specificly delegated to the federation itself is something left to the states to decide, which is why things like marriage licenses or driver's licenses are issued by a state and given "full faith and credit" by the other states.
The reason why the Bush administration wants to pass a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage is because that's the only way the federal government is allowed to get involved. (A truly conservative, "strict constructionist" president would be more interested in a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of "interstate commerce," but then California would be growing marijuana...)
I will grant that, especially in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, the US Constitution serves as a list of things state governments can't do while affirming their power to do anything else (Tenth Amendment), but the states themselves also have their own constitutions to abide by. In the case of Delaware:
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity(.)
Without the anonymity, this blogger would have his or her freedom to criticize public officials curtailed, a freedom guaranteed by the Delaware Constitution.
Just because both major parties have gotten away with abusing powers granted to the United States for their own political ends doesn't make those acts constitutional.
"We invented the type of government where the people are represented by representatives in a legislative body, separate from an executive branch, commonly known as the Republic."
Where, outside of a monarchy, had the executive powers and the legislative powers been kept separate before 1776? More often than not there was an "executive council" that assumed both executive and legislative roles (such as the Roman Senate). A separate executive outside of the legislature came about not from republican examples from history, but from the British monarchy and its distinction from Parliament.
Abandonment. Republican government was dead in Europe at the time, and had been for a long time. There were some experiments with an elective monarch, but it would be very difficult to claim that ultimate control of any Eighteenth Century European government rested with the people. France tried after our example, but then went back to a monarchy for another century or so.
New work. The United States itself combined two older forms of government and created a wholly new work: the federal republic. It is a government that combines aspects of a republic and a federation to create a wholly new type of government that was not seen in Europe until the Twentieth Century.
(Unfortunately, we seem to have lost our federal aspect in the past 60-90 years or so, and I'd suggest that the BRD is more federally republican than the US right now, but that's just my opinion.)
"The constituing networks are build and paid by their respective owners. Basic property rights."
Then you are free to build and maintain your own root servers, are you not?
First off, there's no reason why the date line needs to be at 180. Putting it opposite of the Prime Meridian was just convenient, but its position relative to Prime is still ultimately arbitrary. We could have time zones extending from, say, +6 to -18, instead of +12 to -12.
Secondly, in GMT, just as with Julian days, the day starts at noon, not midnight. Midnight is what GMT's successor, UTC, uses.
"This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government."
Yes, it is very simple. Once upon a time this was called "claim jumping." "Squatting" might have applied if the US had abandoned the root servers beforehand, which it apparently has not.
Unless you want to abandon all pretense of a "rule of law," you're going to have to respect the laws of property ownership. Just because you enjoyed the shade cast over your yard by a neighbor's tree doesn't suddenly make that tree yours.
"(do you really think the "war against terror" can be won by the US alone for example)"
As far as military support is concerned, the UN is only interested in Afghanistan. While I will decine to fault them for not getting involved in Iraq, they do seem very reticent to get involved over the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons.
And as for law enforcement, extradition treaties aren't part of the UN structure and the body has no jurisdiction over those agreements.
"Btw., I'd really like to hear some examples of the US carrying out UN resolutions and then getting blamed for it."
The Korean War.
And as for your last two paragraphs laughing at the idea of controlling "an idea," ultimatley this is about the root servers that are operated in the United States. They're not just "ideas" but real, physical boxen that support the idea. And you seem to be tryin to argue that, simply because other parties now have an interest in what happens with those servers, that control of those servers should now change hands for no other reason.
"Well, since the 1918 virus was essentially already extinct,"
No, it's dormant, which isn't the same thing as extinct. It and/or its descendants are out there, always have been, but various things have gotten in the way of it becoming the pandemic it has the potential of being. We're not talking about small pox, we're talking about something like the bubonic plague; it's something that continues to kill today, just not enough for CNN to notice (yet).
Now, we can sit back on our laurels and hope that a bunch of random factors (many of which we have no control over) stay in the way of another lethal flu pandemic, or we can do something proactive about it.
"These are the same bozos that brought us weaponized anthrax nerve gas and the nuclear bomb a host of other clever things."
Assuming for the moment that the intent of this research was to use this flu strain as a weapon, why? Of what use would it be as a weapon?
Even with weapons of mass destruction, the goal is to kill everybody and then be able to move in and occupy the ground. For example, a good deal of the reasearch into nuclear weapons was finding out how long they'd have to wait before they could go in and plant the flag (so to speak). Remember how a few decades back everybody was talking about "neutron bombs" with a wishful look in their eyes?
However, with a virus that is naturally airborne and highly contagious, like influenza, it will be a long, long time before it becomes safe to put boots on the ground. Beyond the initial attack/dispersal, you want avoiding the disease to be something easy like "Don't drink the water," or "Don't eat local meat/plants," not "Don't breathe the air."
Anthrax is nice because it's not naturally airborne. The white powder we hear about gets the anthrax in the air for a short time, apparently relying static electric fields in whatever makes the powder, but once the powder is dispersed, the electrical forces aren't concentrated enough and the infectuous material just sits there, making it reasonably safe for the invading army.
"The government is actively being lobbied by drug companies"
Your logic fails here. There's no money in the vaccine business, which is why the US was so hard-hit a few years back when a British manufacturer of flu vaccines lost their license.
The pharmecutical industry has nothing to gain. They're more interested in treating long-term, incurable diseases. The flu goes away after a couple of weeks, but diabetes is forever. As such, nobody manufactures flu vaccines, but everybody and their mother wants to sell you some new blood-sucking iPod.
New man whips up flu vaccine for known flu strain.
It's not like we're talking about AIDS or some other untreatable disease, once we know what strain we're dealing with, the only problem we have left is distributing the flu vaccine. And I'm under the impression that, unless we dig up an example of the strain that caused the 1918 pandemic, we can't easily create a vaccine to defend against it.
Audiences reaching for game publisher's competitors.
Seriously, even if in-game product placement went towards lowering game prices (and I won't hold my breath), this is nothing less than pandering for the quick buck at the expense of long-term value. In other words, the Hollywood formula. It's only a matter of time before these publishers have to start looking for a P2P scapegoat to explain away slumping game profits.
"The Korean War was fought because the UN (read USA) forces were encroaching far too close to our borders;"
The Korean War was fought because forces from the DPRK crossed the 38th Parallel.
"The UN was there to overturn the communist government, and were essentially encroaching on our borders;
Considering that DPRK forces initially almost pushed UN forces off of the penninsula entirely before being pushed back north (points north, like Seoul, were ravaged), I'd lay the blame on the DPRK for putting the stakes that high.
"who knew if they would push their advantage into China or not?"
So the Chinese withdrew from the war after Truman fired MacArthur?
"And there was never a war in Tibet, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Tibet was a province of China under the Empire, and since the PRC is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governemnts of the Empire, the PRC is legally in control of Tibet."
And there was never a war in Canada, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Canada was a holding of Great Britain under the Empire, was invited to join the Declaration of Inedependence, and since the USA is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governments of British North America (colonial governments to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1789), the USA is legally in control of Canada.
Secondly, what would stop the consumer from piping through that one play through a recorder, or are we assuming a dedicated player for these discs to require consumers to buy?
News flash: One religion bad-mouths a major competitor! Film at 11!
What exactly what were you expecting? Have on seen who they elected as pope? They're not interested in making friends and playing nice, they want to convert people to Catholicism, period.
"Children aren't allowed to buy pornography and yet I hear no massive outcry about that. This is simply trying to keep excessively vulgar and violent games away from very young children."
Pornography is made with the express intent to be spank material, and they don't even bother sending a copy to the MPAA for a rating. When was the last time someone was arrested for selling a minor a ticket to or a copy of a movie the MPAA gave an NC-17 rating, let alone an R?
"that games are more powerful due to the level of interaction and feedback they require from the user."
But by being an interactive medium, it's possible to play a game and still never see the content that caused a game to get a restrictive rating. You can play a GTA game without killing anybody or having sex or breaking any law in the game, but a violent movie doesn't get any less violent no matter how many times you view it.
"Books are also not being targetted because anybody who looks at social trends can tell that literacy, or at least recreational reading in the US is on the decline."
Books can have pictures, and the comic book industry has had its own experiences with "self-imposed" (i. e. Congressionally inspired) censorship and ratings regimes. But even then it was at least self-imposed in name (no actual laws involved), and any kid can walk into any Waldenbooks in the country and pick up a manga depicting topless underaged girls.
This is all well and good until a Florida Attorney General gets elected on a "Think of the children!" ticket and decides to take one of these online services to court for unwittingly selling an M-rated game to a minor.
Slashdot Mirror
"You don't become an economic juggernaut by taking steps to cut yourself off from the rest of the world. "
Of what use is a standard developed in Japan or the United States when DVD players are still manufactured in China anyway? China has the power to put this new standard onto store shelves around the world, and the debate between content publishers and technology companies will seem moot when the consumers themselves are presented an option that is cheaper than both competitors (because there's no obnoxious licensing fees).
Both flavors of Western(-esque) corporations may want to use a format that lets them enact DRM or region control, but ultimately they will have to sell on a format that people will buy, or no format at all.
Personally, with my dissatisfaction with the interests involved in the BluRay vs. HD-DVD debate, I'm very interested to see what the PRC has to offer. The "communists" may finally show us how capitalism is supposed to work.
"Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider."
Assuming for the moment that these "contracts" actualy exist outside of publishers' heads, the only reason they exist is because Congress is constitutionally authorized to allow protection of intellectual property to begin with. It isn't a case of Congress giving more powers to the people but less power to the copyright holders, which, as representatives of the people (if only in name), is their prerogative.
There is no entitlement, no inherent right to intellectual property. And Congress has the right to trash these contracts just as it has the right to let hired killers break their contracts.
Go read Article I, paying special attention to Section 8. What in there gives Congress the power to legislate in either of those two areas?
If nothing else it is a federal constitution, and anything that isn't specificly delegated to the federation itself is something left to the states to decide, which is why things like marriage licenses or driver's licenses are issued by a state and given "full faith and credit" by the other states.
The reason why the Bush administration wants to pass a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage is because that's the only way the federal government is allowed to get involved. (A truly conservative, "strict constructionist" president would be more interested in a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of "interstate commerce," but then California would be growing marijuana...)
I will grant that, especially in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, the US Constitution serves as a list of things state governments can't do while affirming their power to do anything else (Tenth Amendment), but the states themselves also have their own constitutions to abide by. In the case of Delaware:Without the anonymity, this blogger would have his or her freedom to criticize public officials curtailed, a freedom guaranteed by the Delaware Constitution.
Just because both major parties have gotten away with abusing powers granted to the United States for their own political ends doesn't make those acts constitutional.
I'm pretty sure Sony makes an XM receiver.
(Unfortunately, we seem to have lost our federal aspect in the past 60-90 years or so, and I'd suggest that the BRD is more federally republican than the US right now, but that's just my opinion.)
"The constituing networks are build and paid by their respective owners. Basic property rights."
Then you are free to build and maintain your own root servers, are you not?
First off, there's no reason why the date line needs to be at 180. Putting it opposite of the Prime Meridian was just convenient, but its position relative to Prime is still ultimately arbitrary. We could have time zones extending from, say, +6 to -18, instead of +12 to -12.
Secondly, in GMT, just as with Julian days, the day starts at noon, not midnight. Midnight is what GMT's successor, UTC, uses.
"This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government."
Yes, it is very simple. Once upon a time this was called "claim jumping." "Squatting" might have applied if the US had abandoned the root servers beforehand, which it apparently has not.
Unless you want to abandon all pretense of a "rule of law," you're going to have to respect the laws of property ownership. Just because you enjoyed the shade cast over your yard by a neighbor's tree doesn't suddenly make that tree yours.
"(do you really think the "war against terror" can be won by the US alone for example)"
As far as military support is concerned, the UN is only interested in Afghanistan. While I will decine to fault them for not getting involved in Iraq, they do seem very reticent to get involved over the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons.
And as for law enforcement, extradition treaties aren't part of the UN structure and the body has no jurisdiction over those agreements.
"Btw., I'd really like to hear some examples of the US carrying out UN resolutions and then getting blamed for it."
The Korean War.
And as for your last two paragraphs laughing at the idea of controlling "an idea," ultimatley this is about the root servers that are operated in the United States. They're not just "ideas" but real, physical boxen that support the idea. And you seem to be tryin to argue that, simply because other parties now have an interest in what happens with those servers, that control of those servers should now change hands for no other reason.
"and while the claims of "Google confirms it!" are plentiful, I haven't seen a single named source or attribution for this story."
So... you're saying you're waiting for confirmation from Netcraft?
"Can't we have a decentralized network of root servers working together on this co-operatively?"
No.
Then they should be happy to see us leave. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
"Well, since the 1918 virus was essentially already extinct,"
No, it's dormant, which isn't the same thing as extinct. It and/or its descendants are out there, always have been, but various things have gotten in the way of it becoming the pandemic it has the potential of being. We're not talking about small pox, we're talking about something like the bubonic plague; it's something that continues to kill today, just not enough for CNN to notice (yet).
Now, we can sit back on our laurels and hope that a bunch of random factors (many of which we have no control over) stay in the way of another lethal flu pandemic, or we can do something proactive about it.
So lay off the hypochondriac sarcasm already.
"These are the same bozos that brought us weaponized anthrax nerve gas and the nuclear bomb a host of other clever things."
Assuming for the moment that the intent of this research was to use this flu strain as a weapon, why? Of what use would it be as a weapon?
Even with weapons of mass destruction, the goal is to kill everybody and then be able to move in and occupy the ground. For example, a good deal of the reasearch into nuclear weapons was finding out how long they'd have to wait before they could go in and plant the flag (so to speak). Remember how a few decades back everybody was talking about "neutron bombs" with a wishful look in their eyes?
However, with a virus that is naturally airborne and highly contagious, like influenza, it will be a long, long time before it becomes safe to put boots on the ground. Beyond the initial attack/dispersal, you want avoiding the disease to be something easy like "Don't drink the water," or "Don't eat local meat/plants," not "Don't breathe the air."
Anthrax is nice because it's not naturally airborne. The white powder we hear about gets the anthrax in the air for a short time, apparently relying static electric fields in whatever makes the powder, but once the powder is dispersed, the electrical forces aren't concentrated enough and the infectuous material just sits there, making it reasonably safe for the invading army.
"The government is actively being lobbied by drug companies"
Your logic fails here. There's no money in the vaccine business, which is why the US was so hard-hit a few years back when a British manufacturer of flu vaccines lost their license.
The pharmecutical industry has nothing to gain. They're more interested in treating long-term, incurable diseases. The flu goes away after a couple of weeks, but diabetes is forever. As such, nobody manufactures flu vaccines, but everybody and their mother wants to sell you some new blood-sucking iPod.
So this is why I have yet to be able to get to Penny Arcade or Megatokyo today? I can get to Level3's website, but not Cogent.
You mean in France that chemistry geeks actually get to talk to women?
"New man creates flu.
And what do you think comes next?"
New man whips up flu vaccine for known flu strain.
It's not like we're talking about AIDS or some other untreatable disease, once we know what strain we're dealing with, the only problem we have left is distributing the flu vaccine. And I'm under the impression that, unless we dig up an example of the strain that caused the 1918 pandemic, we can't easily create a vaccine to defend against it.
Welcome to the Twenty-First Century.
"The thief will just take the severed finger into the grocery store and use it right in front of the clerk."
Why pay $5.15 an hour for a warm body when this fingerprint system means you have less reason to have someone around to handle cash?
Audiences reaching for game publisher's competitors.
Seriously, even if in-game product placement went towards lowering game prices (and I won't hold my breath), this is nothing less than pandering for the quick buck at the expense of long-term value. In other words, the Hollywood formula. It's only a matter of time before these publishers have to start looking for a P2P scapegoat to explain away slumping game profits.
"The Korean War was fought because the UN (read USA) forces were encroaching far too close to our borders;"
The Korean War was fought because forces from the DPRK crossed the 38th Parallel.
"The UN was there to overturn the communist government, and were essentially encroaching on our borders;
Considering that DPRK forces initially almost pushed UN forces off of the penninsula entirely before being pushed back north (points north, like Seoul, were ravaged), I'd lay the blame on the DPRK for putting the stakes that high.
"who knew if they would push their advantage into China or not?"
So the Chinese withdrew from the war after Truman fired MacArthur?
"And there was never a war in Tibet, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Tibet was a province of China under the Empire, and since the PRC is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governemnts of the Empire, the PRC is legally in control of Tibet."
And there was never a war in Canada, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Canada was a holding of Great Britain under the Empire, was invited to join the Declaration of Inedependence, and since the USA is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governments of British North America (colonial governments to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1789), the USA is legally in control of Canada.
Only old people in Korea use that one!
"you just call it West Hawaii."
It's West Hawai'i, YIC!
First off, biodegradable?
Secondly, what would stop the consumer from piping through that one play through a recorder, or are we assuming a dedicated player for these discs to require consumers to buy?
News flash: One religion bad-mouths a major competitor! Film at 11!
What exactly what were you expecting? Have on seen who they elected as pope? They're not interested in making friends and playing nice, they want to convert people to Catholicism, period.
"Children aren't allowed to buy pornography and yet I hear no massive outcry about that. This is simply trying to keep excessively vulgar and violent games away from very young children."
Pornography is made with the express intent to be spank material, and they don't even bother sending a copy to the MPAA for a rating. When was the last time someone was arrested for selling a minor a ticket to or a copy of a movie the MPAA gave an NC-17 rating, let alone an R?
"that games are more powerful due to the level of interaction and feedback they require from the user."
But by being an interactive medium, it's possible to play a game and still never see the content that caused a game to get a restrictive rating. You can play a GTA game without killing anybody or having sex or breaking any law in the game, but a violent movie doesn't get any less violent no matter how many times you view it.
"Books are also not being targetted because anybody who looks at social trends can tell that literacy, or at least recreational reading in the US is on the decline."
Books can have pictures, and the comic book industry has had its own experiences with "self-imposed" (i. e. Congressionally inspired) censorship and ratings regimes. But even then it was at least self-imposed in name (no actual laws involved), and any kid can walk into any Waldenbooks in the country and pick up a manga depicting topless underaged girls.
This is all well and good until a Florida Attorney General gets elected on a "Think of the children!" ticket and decides to take one of these online services to court for unwittingly selling an M-rated game to a minor.