One of the important issues with legislation like this is that it should not be addressed based on its economic impact. While that should be a consideration of the implementation of a bill like this if it passes, the bill should be fought on its legality.
Does this law violate the constitution? Does it limit something like free speech?
I think this bill is terrible, but the only way to effectively fight it is to address it in terms that might have some kind of results. Reacting to it out of sheer anger at the results is a very emotional response, but if you haven't noticed emotions are running pretty high across the country at the moment.
This bill must be addressed on its constitutionality, not its effects. You can convince someone (like your congressman) to not vote for a bill based on effects, but it doesn't seem that we have the ear of those who make such decisions at the moment. Bringing up the illegality of such a bill, if possible, is the only way I think legislation like this can be fought.
Any one have any advice on the legality of the proposed SSSCA bill (if such a thing is possible without the text of the bill available)?
I understand the Onion article is satire. If you read my post, I state that, "illustrates a mind that can only be described as "We must destroy our way of life to save it"".
While it should have read "mindset", I do not state that it is fact; I am fully aware of the satirical nature of the Onion. Hence illustrates.
In response to the habeas corpus argument, if you can show me a case "of rebellion or invasion", I will agree with you. However, neither of those criteria have been met, unless you consider terrorists as rebels or invaders. Since the people who commited the acts were here legally, invaders is incorrect, and I would like to see an explanation of how they were rebelling.
According to the supreme court, "The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" (Brown v. Vasquez). Now look at some of the anti terrorist bills proposed, and tell me if they are not advocating a de facto suspension of habea corpus for anyone supspected of terrorist activities.
Can someone please tell me what "way of life" we are protecting if we suspend civil rights and habeas corpus?
Aren't these some of the things that define the American way of life? Maybe someone can help me remember where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights where it mentions that things like free speech are only guaranteed except in cases inconvenient to the government? If we are a nation of laws, not men, we must strive to uphold the laws set forth in our founding documents, not legislate them out of existence.
Without the ability to publicly debate the country's course of action and to question the decisions of the government, how can we mantain the "American way of life"? Without such public debate, our election process is simply the act of choosing a plutocratic dictatorship and hoping for the best.
No jack boots for me, thank-you very much.
The onion article illustrates a mind that can only be described as "We must destroy our way of life to save it".
One slightly tangential note: can anyone tell me what we can possibly be planning to do once we run out of targets to bomb? The only course of action I can see is to engage in a full scale land war in the middle of winter in Afghanistan. And this will stop terrorists and/or terrorism how? I ask only because the nightly news keeps reminding me that al Qaeda is present in over 60 countries, so we are bombing Afghanistan. Does this make any kind of sense?
The biggest threat I see at the moment to the "American way of life" is reactionary politicians that feel they are justified in attacking us, because at least they are not terrorists.
Given the passage of these bills, the only difference between our politican and a terrorist is that the politicians has the full force and resources of the US government at their disposal. Which are you more afraid of?
One of the interesting questions asked about the copyright debate surrounding p2p is that if it continues, how will the artist make money?
The apologists for the RIAA state that the only way to make money is to provide legal protection to the artists to guarantee their rights to a living. The interesting thing about special protection is that for every group that it descriminates in favor of, it also must descriminate in disfavor of everyone else.
The DMCA and bills currently before congress are examples of political rent seeking. The RIAA has found that its current model is threatened in a free economy, and that it can find favoritism through legislation giving it and its interest legal protection. It is, in fact, a much more economically efficient model for the RIAA than actually struggling through the tumult of a free market. However, it also violates the basic tenet of a free market: Competition is good.
In a free market economy, those industries that are most efficient in producing and providing goods and services tend to succeed, while those that are not tend to fail. This insures reasonable distribution and pricing. If there is demand for a product, a free market economy will tend to meet this demand, and at a reasonable price.
The RIAA realizes that they are not the most efficient means of distribution, and are not as competitive as other services. They are in the process of attempting to subvert the tenets of the free market to insure their continued existence. Their success will not be the first example of political rent seeking, but will provide precedent for future political rent seeking by other industries threatened by the changes of digital technology and the network age.
If there is a demand for music, people will create it. They will also find a way to make money on it. To attempt to delineate here the ways in which they might accomplish this a disservice to entreprenuers everywhere. I make no claims as to being the most imaginitive in the ways in which to make money in a free market economy. I have not made a fortune in business, so to lay claims as to having the answer would be questionable at best.
Money can be made on any product or service for which there is a demand. History shows us this. However, until competition and market forces are reestablished in the music industry, the incentive for solutions to be found are very very small. Why would capital and imigination be applied to an industry in which the RIAA has a government mandated protected interest? It is easier to make money elsewhere.
Maybe you should move to one of those countries you site in your post above.
Here, we have constitutional guarantees of freedoms, and I would really like it to remain that way. The terrorists attacked not only the World Trade Center, but our way of life. Changing our way of life, and living in fear of future attacks (terror), is their goal, not just their weapon.
I refuse to live in fear. I refuse to cede my freedoms. As another poster quoted, "Give me liberty, or give me death" is not just a saying, but a statement of belief.
I am angry at what happened. I also want to do something about it, but sacrificing my freedom for a quick and easy solution is not, and can not be, the cost of that solution. Ever.
You are one of the people who are feeling for a solution to this problem, instead of thinking of a solution. People have died. The country is in a panic. Haven't we lost enough already. Must you sacrifice our freedom, too?
Does anyone else notice how the tactics of this attack mirror the attack on the Capitol building in Tom Clancy's book "Executive Orders". If I remember correctly, I read it a few years ago, he talks about how hard it would be to stop a large plane near the target, due to the sheer momentum and size of a modern airliner.
I guess you don't have to trust the source, but if you value the integrity of TR than this quote answers your question:
"The software dumps unprotected copies of these files into a new folder on the user's computer--as the programmer demonstrated to Technology Review using an actual owner-exclusive e-book purchased from a major online bookstore."
Seems like it was demonstrated to work, especially if the book was TR selected.
Speaking only from personal experience, I believe while the article is correct, there are other issues that hurt science and mathematics as well.
One of the primary things is the way in which they are taught. I am not advocating more touchy-feely courses, but the classes I have had both in high school and college that were the most mind-numbingly boring were in the schools of engineering, sciences, and methematics. While this is where my interests lie, many of my professors couldn't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. They were very smart, great researchers, etc., but horrible at imparting that knowledge on to most of their students.
One of my physics classes was so bad that after the first 2-3 weeks, attendance dropped to about 40%, because the professor was so unbelievably boring. In addition, of those who still attended, over half were unconscious with in the first 20 minutes of the two hour lecture. How is learning achieved in such cases? I know many people in the liberal arts that avoided science courses for exactly this reason. I suffered through them because of my interest in the subjects, but it was torture. Pure torture.
But with a classroom of more than one student, it doesn't seem like it would be impossible to pay teachers a reasonable rate above the overhead of the facilities.
One of the things wasting a lot of educational money, in my opinion, is the overabundance of non teaching staff in schools. My highschool had something like 1 administrator for every five teachers. And that was only the ones at the school, not even counting school district staff, and the like.
Carrying your math a bit further:
Putting 15 kids per class ( not common for public schools, but a common number for private schools) gives you:
7.50 * 15 = 112.50 an hour per class.
So you are telling me that a public school can't pay a teacher well, given a revenue stream of $225.00 an hour (7.50 * 30) per class? That seems a little ludicrous. For the amount we spend per student, especially in California, every student ought to be a frickin nobel prize winner.
Given the industry statistics for the widespread illegal use of copyrighted software, such as Windows, wouldn't it be interesting if someone did an audit of the RIAA or MPAA member institutions and saw how up to par their software licenses are?
My thinking goes like this: How can an organization such as the RIAA or MPAA, whose primary purpose is to forward the interests of their member companies, including the enforcement of copyright, hold any sway in court over copyright infringements, if they have been tried and convicted of the same crime?
Kind of a "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" situation, no?
I think that if they are going to tax CD-R's, they should include Micro$oft, Adobe, and others in the negotiations. After all, I bet a lot of the illegal copying has to do with data discs, not just music discs.
By my calculations, getting the music industry and the software industry to agree on anything will take years, and until then, we are all safe. Case in point: look how long it took to establish the DVD standard with the MPAA, RIAA, and software houses all involved.
Actually, between the weight of the wing itself, and the need to reenforce the structure of the vehicle along two axis, using the atmosphere can really add a lot of weight.
Some people have solutions that give you VTVL without needing to balance on the point of a needle. Unfortunately, they seem to be out of money.
Kinda sad, really.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
...This is something I have been waiting for for a long time. I just hope they hurry up and release the rest soon. I can't wait to watch my namesake on DVD. The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
the major issue in a component system becomes the protocol that devices use to communicate. Sony has done some work in this area, but unfortunately their protocol is proprietary. A standard protocol for communicating between devices would allow multiple vendors to build components that all adhered to the standard, and allowed control to be administered by a computer controller. Even more interesting would be a peer arrangement where any device with the processing power could act as the controller and could talk to its peer components to express the user's wishes. Still just dreaming, but I think the protocol would be key to actually seeing devices that can interoperate at the desired level.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
Re:Cheap, efficient power vs. the A-bomb
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
Great for distributed uses and "peak shaving". Not so good for overall bulk producing. The price is correct, though. Auxillary costs, such as land, pipelines, and pollution credits are not accounted for. However, don't just discount facts because you are'nt willing to do the research.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein details the exact same idea except that it was launching rocks from the moon instead of diverting asteroids from orbit. How is this concept new? The book was written in 1966. It's all about the gravity well. Definite high school physics.
zor_prime
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
Absolutely. I think the whole "we don't cache" argument is pretty weak. I mean, one of the leading search engines does it, why can't Slashdot. I have read all the arguments about this, ant they just don't seem to hold water. It seems almost cruel for Slashdot to link to small sites anymore. It simply insures that they are out of service for days. Poor netiquette, Slashdot.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics: 1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even.
Except that the high bandwidth users are also the ones hosting all the files for download. Unless Napster is going to buy a BUNCH of servers to handle the demand, Napster as you suggest it would be a ghost town with no music whatsoever.
What about if by providing bandwidth, a user was credited some way towards their own napster subscription, i.e. if you serve over a certain threshold, you get a 50% discount on your napster subscription? Would that change the incentive level for being a host in a subscription napster world?
I can see napster setting up serving brackets, with hosts that serve up a lot of files getting varying levels of discounts on their own napster subscriptions. Then the hosts would have an implicit incentive to provide a wide catalog of songs.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the important issues with legislation like this is that it should not be addressed based on its economic impact. While that should be a consideration of the implementation of a bill like this if it passes, the bill should be fought on its legality.
Does this law violate the constitution? Does it limit something like free speech?
I think this bill is terrible, but the only way to effectively fight it is to address it in terms that might have some kind of results. Reacting to it out of sheer anger at the results is a very emotional response, but if you haven't noticed emotions are running pretty high across the country at the moment.
This bill must be addressed on its constitutionality, not its effects. You can convince someone (like your congressman) to not vote for a bill based on effects, but it doesn't seem that we have the ear of those who make such decisions at the moment. Bringing up the illegality of such a bill, if possible, is the only way I think legislation like this can be fought.
Any one have any advice on the legality of the proposed SSSCA bill (if such a thing is possible without the text of the bill available)?
zor_prime
I might have to scout out some wilderness myself.
Reminds me of those WWII flick nazis:
"Papers, please."
zor_prime
I am in touch with reality.
I understand the Onion article is satire. If you read my post, I state that, "illustrates a mind that can only be described as "We must destroy our way of life to save it"".
While it should have read "mindset", I do not state that it is fact; I am fully aware of the satirical nature of the Onion. Hence illustrates.
In response to the habeas corpus argument, if you can show me a case "of rebellion or invasion", I will agree with you. However, neither of those criteria have been met, unless you consider terrorists as rebels or invaders. Since the people who commited the acts were here legally, invaders is incorrect, and I would like to see an explanation of how they were rebelling.
According to the supreme court, "The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" (Brown v. Vasquez). Now look at some of the anti terrorist bills proposed, and tell me if they are not advocating a de facto suspension of habea corpus for anyone supspected of terrorist activities.
zor_prime
Can someone please tell me what "way of life" we are protecting if we suspend civil rights and habeas corpus?
Aren't these some of the things that define the American way of life? Maybe someone can help me remember where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights where it mentions that things like free speech are only guaranteed except in cases inconvenient to the government? If we are a nation of laws, not men, we must strive to uphold the laws set forth in our founding documents, not legislate them out of existence.
Without the ability to publicly debate the country's course of action and to question the decisions of the government, how can we mantain the "American way of life"? Without such public debate, our election process is simply the act of choosing a plutocratic dictatorship and hoping for the best.
No jack boots for me, thank-you very much.
The onion article illustrates a mind that can only be described as "We must destroy our way of life to save it".
One slightly tangential note: can anyone tell me what we can possibly be planning to do once we run out of targets to bomb? The only course of action I can see is to engage in a full scale land war in the middle of winter in Afghanistan. And this will stop terrorists and/or terrorism how? I ask only because the nightly news keeps reminding me that al Qaeda is present in over 60 countries, so we are bombing Afghanistan. Does this make any kind of sense?
The biggest threat I see at the moment to the "American way of life" is reactionary politicians that feel they are justified in attacking us, because at least they are not terrorists.
Given the passage of these bills, the only difference between our politican and a terrorist is that the politicians has the full force and resources of the US government at their disposal. Which are you more afraid of?
zor_prime
One of the interesting questions asked about the copyright debate surrounding p2p is that if it continues, how will the artist make money?
The apologists for the RIAA state that the only way to make money is to provide legal protection to the artists to guarantee their rights to a living. The interesting thing about special protection is that for every group that it descriminates in favor of, it also must descriminate in disfavor of everyone else.
The DMCA and bills currently before congress are examples of political rent seeking. The RIAA has found that its current model is threatened in a free economy, and that it can find favoritism through legislation giving it and its interest legal protection. It is, in fact, a much more economically efficient model for the RIAA than actually struggling through the tumult of a free market. However, it also violates the basic tenet of a free market: Competition is good.
In a free market economy, those industries that are most efficient in producing and providing goods and services tend to succeed, while those that are not tend to fail. This insures reasonable distribution and pricing. If there is demand for a product, a free market economy will tend to meet this demand, and at a reasonable price.
The RIAA realizes that they are not the most efficient means of distribution, and are not as competitive as other services. They are in the process of attempting to subvert the tenets of the free market to insure their continued existence. Their success will not be the first example of political rent seeking, but will provide precedent for future political rent seeking by other industries threatened by the changes of digital technology and the network age.
If there is a demand for music, people will create it. They will also find a way to make money on it. To attempt to delineate here the ways in which they might accomplish this a disservice to entreprenuers everywhere. I make no claims as to being the most imaginitive in the ways in which to make money in a free market economy. I have not made a fortune in business, so to lay claims as to having the answer would be questionable at best.
Money can be made on any product or service for which there is a demand. History shows us this. However, until competition and market forces are reestablished in the music industry, the incentive for solutions to be found are very very small. Why would capital and imigination be applied to an industry in which the RIAA has a government mandated protected interest? It is easier to make money elsewhere.
zor_prime
This would be an example of political rent seeking. Here is an interesting paper on it.
Maybe you should move to one of those countries you site in your post above.
Here, we have constitutional guarantees of freedoms, and I would really like it to remain that way. The terrorists attacked not only the World Trade Center, but our way of life. Changing our way of life, and living in fear of future attacks (terror), is their goal, not just their weapon.
I refuse to live in fear. I refuse to cede my freedoms. As another poster quoted, "Give me liberty, or give me death" is not just a saying, but a statement of belief.
I am angry at what happened. I also want to do something about it, but sacrificing my freedom for a quick and easy solution is not, and can not be, the cost of that solution. Ever.
You are one of the people who are feeling for a solution to this problem, instead of thinking of a solution. People have died. The country is in a panic. Haven't we lost enough already. Must you sacrifice our freedom, too?
Does anyone else notice how the tactics of this attack mirror the attack on the Capitol building in Tom Clancy's book "Executive Orders". If I remember correctly, I read it a few years ago, he talks about how hard it would be to stop a large plane near the target, due to the sheer momentum and size of a modern airliner.
Just another random thought.
Has anyone else noticed that today is 911 day? As in 9/11/01?
Just a random thought that popped up through the shock.
"The software dumps unprotected copies of these files into a new folder on the user's computer--as the programmer demonstrated to Technology Review using an actual owner-exclusive e-book purchased from a major online bookstore."
Seems like it was demonstrated to work, especially if the book was TR selected.
Speaking only from personal experience, I believe while the article is correct, there are other issues that hurt science and mathematics as well.
One of the primary things is the way in which they are taught. I am not advocating more touchy-feely courses, but the classes I have had both in high school and college that were the most mind-numbingly boring were in the schools of engineering, sciences, and methematics. While this is where my interests lie, many of my professors couldn't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. They were very smart, great researchers, etc., but horrible at imparting that knowledge on to most of their students.
One of my physics classes was so bad that after the first 2-3 weeks, attendance dropped to about 40%, because the professor was so unbelievably boring. In addition, of those who still attended, over half were unconscious with in the first 20 minutes of the two hour lecture. How is learning achieved in such cases? I know many people in the liberal arts that avoided science courses for exactly this reason. I suffered through them because of my interest in the subjects, but it was torture. Pure torture.
But with a classroom of more than one student, it doesn't seem like it would be impossible to pay teachers a reasonable rate above the overhead of the facilities.
One of the things wasting a lot of educational money, in my opinion, is the overabundance of non teaching staff in schools. My highschool had something like 1 administrator for every five teachers. And that was only the ones at the school, not even counting school district staff, and the like.
Carrying your math a bit further:
Putting 15 kids per class ( not common for public schools, but a common number for private schools) gives you:
7.50 * 15 = 112.50 an hour per class.
So you are telling me that a public school can't pay a teacher well, given a revenue stream of $225.00 an hour (7.50 * 30) per class? That seems a little ludicrous. For the amount we spend per student, especially in California, every student ought to be a frickin nobel prize winner.
Ridiculous. And only getting worse.
Given the industry statistics for the widespread illegal use of copyrighted software, such as Windows, wouldn't it be interesting if someone did an audit of the RIAA or MPAA member institutions and saw how up to par their software licenses are?
My thinking goes like this: How can an organization such as the RIAA or MPAA, whose primary purpose is to forward the interests of their member companies, including the enforcement of copyright, hold any sway in court over copyright infringements, if they have been tried and convicted of the same crime?
Kind of a "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" situation, no?
I think that if they are going to tax CD-R's, they should include Micro$oft, Adobe, and others in the negotiations. After all, I bet a lot of the illegal copying has to do with data discs, not just music discs.
By my calculations, getting the music industry and the software industry to agree on anything will take years, and until then, we are all safe. Case in point: look how long it took to establish the DVD standard with the MPAA, RIAA, and software houses all involved.
Some people have solutions that give you VTVL without needing to balance on the point of a needle. Unfortunately, they seem to be out of money.
Kinda sad, really.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
...This is something I have been waiting for for a long time. I just hope they hurry up and release the rest soon. I can't wait to watch my namesake on DVD.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
When in trouble,
When in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
(Author unknown)
Others, anyone?
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
the major issue in a component system becomes the protocol that devices use to communicate. Sony has done some work in this area, but unfortunately their protocol is proprietary. A standard protocol for communicating between devices would allow multiple vendors to build components that all adhered to the standard, and allowed control to be administered by a computer controller. Even more interesting would be a peer arrangement where any device with the processing power could act as the controller and could talk to its peer components to express the user's wishes. Still just dreaming, but I think the protocol would be key to actually seeing devices that can interoperate at the desired level.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
About $1000 a kilowatt:
9 43 58,00.html
http://www.localbusiness.com/Story/0,1118,LAX_5
Great for distributed uses and "peak shaving". Not so good for overall bulk producing. The price is correct, though. Auxillary costs, such as land, pipelines, and pollution credits are not accounted for. However, don't just discount facts because you are'nt willing to do the research.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein details the exact same idea except that it was launching rocks from the moon instead of diverting asteroids from orbit. How is this concept new? The book was written in 1966. It's all about the gravity well. Definite high school physics.
zor_prime
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
Absolutely. I think the whole "we don't cache" argument is pretty weak. I mean, one of the leading search engines does it, why can't Slashdot. I have read all the arguments about this, ant they just don't seem to hold water. It seems almost cruel for Slashdot to link to small sites anymore. It simply insures that they are out of service for days. Poor netiquette, Slashdot.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
This is now my sig.
The abbreviated Laws of Thermodynamics:
1)You can't win.
2)You can't break even.
Go DR. Demento! I love that series of radio sketches. For those of you wondering, that is where the "Boot to the head" phrase came from.
Except that the high bandwidth users are also the ones hosting all the files for download. Unless Napster is going to buy a BUNCH of servers to handle the demand, Napster as you suggest it would be a ghost town with no music whatsoever.
What about if by providing bandwidth, a user was credited some way towards their own napster subscription, i.e. if you serve over a certain threshold, you get a 50% discount on your napster subscription? Would that change the incentive level for being a host in a subscription napster world?
I can see napster setting up serving brackets, with hosts that serve up a lot of files getting varying levels of discounts on their own napster subscriptions. Then the hosts would have an implicit incentive to provide a wide catalog of songs.
What do the rest of you think of this?