For the last six years, I've been collecting data on all civil wars fought since 1816 as part of an update to the Correlates of War datasets, which have been instrumental in reshaping the scientific study of international politics. Right now, the biggest obstacle to further progress is that most of the abscure wars we're considering simply aren't described in English. The only materials on many Latin American wars (e.g. the dozen or so civil conflicts in Ecuador) are in Spanish, while information on many African revolts is only available in French. This project simply doesn't have the resources to hire full-time translators, so even basic MT would be great, for it would allow me to skim through reams of documents and online articles in order to identify the materials worth the costly time of a human translator. In addition, even a modest improvement in MT would allow me to extract data from foreign-language materials myself, since I'm generally seeking quantitative data on casualties and force levels, not a detailed description of events.
During the Napster case, the Napster people called this "space shifting." The phrase was meant to evoke the "time shifting" that the Supreme Court had ruled was fair use for owners of VCRs. The district and appeals courts both rejected the argument that consumers had the right to download MP3s of songs they already owned so they could listen to them away from home.
Unless you are personally making the copy from the actual physical CD or LP you own, owning the music in a different format is not a defense. If you personally rip your own CDs to MP3s, however, then you're actions are legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I lived in Harris County (Houston). We were hit by an uninsured driver. The cop said that 2/3 of all drivers in Harris County were uninsured. A first offense has very little penalty, something like a hundred or two if you get insurance. So if you get away without liability insurance fr six months, you've saved a bundle. And of course the uninsured tend to drive beaters anyway so they don't care about not having collision coverage.
OK, who the hell thought the rantings of some random bigot were "insightful" or even particularly "interesting," for that matter? It bugs me that any/. mods thought this was more than a troll. Like Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, open racists like this are really beyond rational persuasion and best left sitting in the shadows. Responding to them as if they make arguments just convinces them that they are a part of some sort of lively debate instead of simply being an unpleasant odor in the room.
Actually the reason they focus on retail value is that unlawfully copying more than $1000 retail value is necessary to trigger the criminal penalties of the No Electronic Theft Act. The law mandates retail value where such data exists, though courts can use "street value" for unreleased content, etc.
Re:Was this really a surprise to anyone, though?
on
Fansubbers Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
There is no duty to assert copyright. Things don't just "fall into the public domain" in the US. Now, trademarks must be asserted or they lose protection (Xerox, aspirin are examples of the issue) but there is no parallel legal duty to defend your copyright. Anything short of explicit authorization to distribute means distribution is illegal, and creation alone implies copyright since the US ratified the Berne Convention (i.e. you don't even need to say "all rights reserved" any more). The only exceptions for the public are "fair use" and the first-sale doctrine. These companies do not have to enforce their rights now; they could choose to selectively enforce those rights against commercial profiteers if they wished.
Actually, the solution you suggest is probably illegal. Desite the fact that Intuit may also be breaking the law, it is generally unlawful for an industry to conspire together in restraint of trade (in this case, to lock out a competitor from the online banking market). Still, since the Bush Administration seems to be turning a blind eye to antitrust law, now would be the best time for banks to implement this proposal. I for one welcome a business conspiracy in favor of consumers.
You're missing the point. The law in the US is that users are liable for obscene amounts of money for every song. So let's say they can only prove you uploaded 5 songs. US copyright law provides for statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per violation. So even if the court concludes that the infringement was not "willfull" (i.e. you didn't know the songs were copyrighted, etc) then you're still liable for a minimum of $3750. Now suppose you actually uploaded a few dozen songs and you did understand P2P so that the infringement was "willful." You're liable for over a million dollars in damages for just 34 songs! Therefore, unless you are sure you can win that only one or two songs were uploaded and that the infringement was not willful, you should settle. And of course, all of this assumes lawyers work for free. You'll probably spend thousands even on a successful defense. The law makes the RIAA's extortion easy because of its grossly disproportionate "statutory damages."
As an academic who uses simulations alongside formal modeling, statistical analysis, and experiments I can say that most academics know that simulation is a lousy way to "prove" a theory. Think of simulations as extended logic problems: the outcome is completely determined by the assumptions one makes and the inputs one provides to the simulation. No respected academic would suggest that simulations can "prove" the merits of a particular theory.
Simulation is, however, great for one thing: identifying the predictions generated by one's theory given a set of inputs. If you're trying to show that rule A doesn't necessarily predict outcome B, then simulation is useful. If you'd like to prove rule A does predict outcome B (i.e. almost any useful causal statement), then you need to follow up your simulation with empirical analysis.
Simulation says "If I'm right about everything, this is what the world should look like." It doesn't prove that you're right, but it does tell you what evidence you need to examine. Ultimately, if your theory can't predict the real world, it's of little import to most academics.
Actually, AntiVir (both program and definition files) seems to be updated almost daily. I use it and the only time I've run into trouble is when I've neglected to update my signatures and get hit with a brand new virus. Oh, it also does a good job at detecting malware, though I mainly use Ad-Aware for that purpose. I install AntiVir on my parents' machine, but they always cancel out of the online updates, even though it reminds you and they're free.
Try reading the law before you spout off about it. See Section 1201, which provides: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
The anti-trafficking provisions are in addition to the anti-circumvention provisions. See also anypublished analysis before pontification.
That part has never been tested in court. Actually, very little of the DMCA has been tested. If I recall, the only prosecution was that of Elcomsoft and they were acquitted. Would courts convict someone for giving a speech, writing a paper, or posting a mesage that informed people about how to bypass access controls? I suspect they wouldn't -- but until we know whether speech is considered a form of "trafficking" the chilling effect of the law will continue to be felt.
Actually, if you read a UN report on the matter, its scientists concluded that the lingering radiation from Chernobyl is equal to about 40% of the dose from all nuclear tests put together. Check the table at the bottom. I recall reading that the particular isotopes released by the explosion were worse than those from nuclear tests for some reason, but I haven't been able to locate the source of that information.
If you live in America, it is indeed illegal to modify your own hardware in order to bypass copy protection or access controls on copyrighted works. Technically, if you take a Sharpie to the edge of a copy-protected CD to get it to play in your PC, you've committed a felony. Download a "crack" or no-cd "fix" for a game? Go to jail. Thank our friend the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which prohibits any circumvention of copy protection or access controls -- and also makes it a crime to "traffic" in the technologies to do so.
I really am not comfortable with the idea of going back in time to revoke someone's doctorate unless academic misconduct led to its granting in the first place. This is part of a general principle: Once you assign the degree, no post-degree behavior should alter your judgement that this person fulfilled the requiremens for the degree. I don't care if you turn out to be a dictator, a Communist, a conservative, a liar, a child molester, a monk, a mass murderer, or a plumber. You met the requirements and earned the degree -- it's that simple. Degrees are not a measure of your worth as a human being -- they are certification that you successfully met a series of requirements, none of which include being a decent and honorable person.
Now if you got the degree through academic malfeasance, that's a different matter -- but I checked the article and all of this guy's sins seem to have been post-graduation.
You are referring to dark matter: the "missing mass" problem. There isn't enough mass to account for the fact the universe is expanding (and apparently is nearly flat). Hence, there must be some form of matter we cannot see, i.e. dark matter.
Dark energy is a second conundrum which does not depend on the mere fact the universe is expanding. It is a puzzle generated by the fact that the rate of expansion seems to be increasing! It's as if something is actively pushing space apart; since gravity grows weaker with distance the push becomes more and more important as the universe expands. Hence the "cosmological constant" -- it would provide a constant push that would initially be overwhelmed by gravity (so the expansion of the universe would begin to slow) but would remain constant everywhere regardless of distance and would thus overcome gravity over very large distances. The result? A universe that goes "bang," inflates rapidly, and then begins to slow down as space expands. Forward billions of years...and the slow expansion starts to speed up again, faster and faster until everything flies a p a r t . ..
I actually RTFA and this is the quote that grabbed me: " The most notable demo starred Sega's own Sonic the Hedgehog. The demo proper was displayed in the top DS screen and featured Sonic running through a familiar island setting. You could control Sonic's movements by using the stylus on the lower touch screen. Tapping the screen made Sonic jump, while sliding the stylus across the power meter style image on the lower screen let you build up Sonic's speed. The more you slid the stylus, the faster an onscreen meter built up. Every time the meter filled, Sonic's speed would bump up to a higher level. Another component of the demo let you manipulate the camera on Sonic--you could switch between different angles on the fly by tapping icons on the touchscreen. The graphics in the demo looked good and ran at a smooth clip. Texture detail and polygon count were respectable but didn't quite match the quality of console hardware. The effects used as Sonic's speed leveled up were pretty slick and made use of a wide variety of color and particle effects."
This business of using someone else's trademarks (and copyrighted work) for commercial purposes just can't be a smart move, even if it was done in jest. Has there been some Nintendo-Sega agreement of which I am unaware?
Watch out for those "always" and "never" statements. A couple of states did pass UCITA and a few court decisions have upheld parts of EULAs. On the other hand, some states passed laws making EULAs non-binding and New York courts rejected them as contract. It all depends on what state you're in -- most of them haven't adjudicated the issue yet.
1. Minors can enter into contracts, but in most cases they also have the right to cancel them (therefore, few people will sign a contract with a minor). Cancelling a contract means the minor must return the property.
2. Amending terms of sale can be legal if it's part of a contract, though all sorts of interesting "consideration" issues come up. It's really remarkable how many "rights" you can sign away in a contract.
3. The consideration for the EULA is the use of the software/music itself. This is the "you own the media but we own the code" model. Most courts will look at the opportunity for the purchaser to know the license terms prior to sale -- ie printing them on the box is better than making them available on a website is better than hiding them on the CD itself. Still, courts can be remarkably business-friendly places.
4. Again, some courts have ruled that click-through agreements are valid. A four-year-old summary of prior cases is available online.
5. This is an interesting scenario, and in all the cases of which I'm aware, there were other issues that resolved the case without forcing the judge to reach a decision about circumventing the EULA.
1. Patches 2. Antivirus -- Antivir 3. Anti-adware -- Ad-Aware 4. Images -- IrfanView 5. Sound -- Winamp 6. Video -- Media Player Classic with RealAlternative and QuickAlternative 7. Email -- anything but Outlook Express; I use Eudora 8. Adobe Reader -- I like the antialiasing... 9. MS Office -- Yeah, I know... 10. FTP -- WS_FTP LE
Since the corn farmers of Iowa have made ethanol a political litmus-test for presidential nominees, the American people have been stuck paying huge amounts (something like $30 for each $1 of profit earned by ethanol sales) to provide "corn welfare" benefits. Do you really think that such a powerful lobby will allow imports of a cheaper type of ethanol?
Expect to hear planted stories about the unhealthiness/antienvironmental harms of the "new" ethanol, followed by urgent Congre$$ional action to shut off the flow of cheap foreign ethanol (and amend such a ban to include Americans who might get the idea of making ethanol from products other than corn). This isn't tinfoil-hat stuff, just the depressing reality of democratic politics: when the public isn't interested in an issue, naked interest-group politics takes precedence.
You are confusing means and ends. The problem is that piracy without a profit motive shouldn't be a crime. The proper place for a company that believes someone is denying it profits is a civil court, ala the RIAA lawsuits. In fact, this is exactly the system we had in the US until a few years ago. The No Electronic Theft Act (which criminalized copyright violation without a profit motive) is a recent development, passed in December 1997. Prior to this, what Fairlight and others were doing was called a tort, not a crime.
Put simply: We don't imprison reckless or drunk surgeons, the heads of monopolies, patent and trademark infringers, or lawyers that don't bother to put on a case for their client. Instead, we allow those who can prove they were injured by these people to file civil lawsuits. The same should be true of copyright infringement. Would you support a law throwing patent infringers into prison? How about employees that steal employer time by goofing off on the job? What about trademark infringers like (outside the US) the Lindows folks? What makes copyright so special in comparison to other forms of intellectual property, medical procedures, etc? These people don't belong in prison.
Status of "No First Use" -- Just India and China
on
U.S. Prepares to Get Nuked
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, Russia abandoned its No First Use (NFU) doctrine after the end of the Cold War. It no longer renounces the first use of nuclear weapons. As you pointed out, the US has never renounced first use. I know Pakistan and Israel have not. Britain recently stated it might reply to a non-nuclear WMD attack with nuclear weapons, and NATO (including Britain and France) reserves the option as well. Only two states still have NFU. China has always had an unconditional NFU doctrine. India has been under internal pressure to abandon its own NFU pledge.
A comprehensive summary of existing policies is available at this site.
Have you read the Constitution? Article VI, Section 2 says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Put simply, the Constitution and treaties are both the supreme law of the land, though the same is true for laws only if they are made "in pursuance thereof" the Constitution. Now in Reid v. Covert the Supreme Court said that treaties had to be constitutional, but we made it 150 years without that decision and it could be reversed one day. More importantly, Reid only bars the US government from acting unconstitutionally in pursuance to a treaty; it does not bar the other side from acting in ways that would be impermissible in our own country. Finally, this merely prohibits treaties that explicitly violate one or more Constitutional provisions, yet there is no provision barring, say, extradition to a UN tribunal.
2. The Supremes have repreatedly ruled that in fact, the US government preceded the Constitution, not the other way around. The logic goes like this. First, the US existed prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation and prio to that as independent states. Second, the framers were not signing a suicide pact. Nothing in the Constitution was intended to prevent the country from surviving. This is the rationale for allowing searches at the border (or even near the border) that would be impermissible in the interior of the country. This rationale could easily be extended to treaties, given the Supremes' reluctance to hear cases about foreign affairs.
3. We already extradite to countries without the protections of the US Constitution. Interestingly, we've even allowed extradition to a few countries with whom we have no such treaty! (18 U.S.C. 3184). Courts treat extradition as a civil matter, not a criminal one, so that questions about most trial rights are irrelevant (as are questions about the procedures used by the other country).
Slashdot Mirror
For the last six years, I've been collecting data on all civil wars fought since 1816 as part of an update to the Correlates of War datasets, which have been instrumental in reshaping the scientific study of international politics. Right now, the biggest obstacle to further progress is that most of the abscure wars we're considering simply aren't described in English. The only materials on many Latin American wars (e.g. the dozen or so civil conflicts in Ecuador) are in Spanish, while information on many African revolts is only available in French. This project simply doesn't have the resources to hire full-time translators, so even basic MT would be great, for it would allow me to skim through reams of documents and online articles in order to identify the materials worth the costly time of a human translator. In addition, even a modest improvement in MT would allow me to extract data from foreign-language materials myself, since I'm generally seeking quantitative data on casualties and force levels, not a detailed description of events.
Ack.
"your" not "you're"
During the Napster case, the Napster people called this "space shifting." The phrase was meant to evoke the "time shifting" that the Supreme Court had ruled was fair use for owners of VCRs. The district and appeals courts both rejected the argument that consumers had the right to download MP3s of songs they already owned so they could listen to them away from home.
Unless you are personally making the copy from the actual physical CD or LP you own, owning the music in a different format is not a defense. If you personally rip your own CDs to MP3s, however, then you're actions are legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I lived in Harris County (Houston). We were hit by an uninsured driver. The cop said that 2/3 of all drivers in Harris County were uninsured. A first offense has very little penalty, something like a hundred or two if you get insurance. So if you get away without liability insurance fr six months, you've saved a bundle. And of course the uninsured tend to drive beaters anyway so they don't care about not having collision coverage.
Moderation +1
/. mods thought this was more than a troll. Like Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, open racists like this are really beyond rational persuasion and best left sitting in the shadows. Responding to them as if they make arguments just convinces them that they are a part of some sort of lively debate instead of simply being an unpleasant odor in the room.
30% Interesting
40% Insightful
30% Overrated
OK, who the hell thought the rantings of some random bigot were "insightful" or even particularly "interesting," for that matter? It bugs me that any
Actually the reason they focus on retail value is that unlawfully copying more than $1000 retail value is necessary to trigger the criminal penalties of the No Electronic Theft Act. The law mandates retail value where such data exists, though courts can use "street value" for unreleased content, etc.
There is no duty to assert copyright. Things don't just "fall into the public domain" in the US. Now, trademarks must be asserted or they lose protection (Xerox, aspirin are examples of the issue) but there is no parallel legal duty to defend your copyright. Anything short of explicit authorization to distribute means distribution is illegal, and creation alone implies copyright since the US ratified the Berne Convention (i.e. you don't even need to say "all rights reserved" any more). The only exceptions for the public are "fair use" and the first-sale doctrine. These companies do not have to enforce their rights now; they could choose to selectively enforce those rights against commercial profiteers if they wished.
Actually, the solution you suggest is probably illegal. Desite the fact that Intuit may also be breaking the law, it is generally unlawful for an industry to conspire together in restraint of trade (in this case, to lock out a competitor from the online banking market). Still, since the Bush Administration seems to be turning a blind eye to antitrust law, now would be the best time for banks to implement this proposal. I for one welcome a business conspiracy in favor of consumers.
You're missing the point. The law in the US is that users are liable for obscene amounts of money for every song. So let's say they can only prove you uploaded 5 songs. US copyright law provides for statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per violation. So even if the court concludes that the infringement was not "willfull" (i.e. you didn't know the songs were copyrighted, etc) then you're still liable for a minimum of $3750. Now suppose you actually uploaded a few dozen songs and you did understand P2P so that the infringement was "willful." You're liable for over a million dollars in damages for just 34 songs! Therefore, unless you are sure you can win that only one or two songs were uploaded and that the infringement was not willful, you should settle. And of course, all of this assumes lawyers work for free. You'll probably spend thousands even on a successful defense. The law makes the RIAA's extortion easy because of its grossly disproportionate "statutory damages."
As an academic who uses simulations alongside formal modeling, statistical analysis, and experiments I can say that most academics know that simulation is a lousy way to "prove" a theory. Think of simulations as extended logic problems: the outcome is completely determined by the assumptions one makes and the inputs one provides to the simulation. No respected academic would suggest that simulations can "prove" the merits of a particular theory.
Simulation is, however, great for one thing: identifying the predictions generated by one's theory given a set of inputs. If you're trying to show that rule A doesn't necessarily predict outcome B, then simulation is useful. If you'd like to prove rule A does predict outcome B (i.e. almost any useful causal statement), then you need to follow up your simulation with empirical analysis.
Simulation says "If I'm right about everything, this is what the world should look like." It doesn't prove that you're right, but it does tell you what evidence you need to examine. Ultimately, if your theory can't predict the real world, it's of little import to most academics.
Actually, AntiVir (both program and definition files) seems to be updated almost daily. I use it and the only time I've run into trouble is when I've neglected to update my signatures and get hit with a brand new virus. Oh, it also does a good job at detecting malware, though I mainly use Ad-Aware for that purpose. I install AntiVir on my parents' machine, but they always cancel out of the online updates, even though it reminds you and they're free.
Try reading the law before you spout off about it. See Section 1201, which provides: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
The anti-trafficking provisions are in addition to the anti-circumvention provisions. See also any published analysis before pontification.
That part has never been tested in court. Actually, very little of the DMCA has been tested. If I recall, the only prosecution was that of Elcomsoft and they were acquitted. Would courts convict someone for giving a speech, writing a paper, or posting a mesage that informed people about how to bypass access controls? I suspect they wouldn't -- but until we know whether speech is considered a form of "trafficking" the chilling effect of the law will continue to be felt.
Actually, if you read a UN report on the matter, its scientists concluded that the lingering radiation from Chernobyl is equal to about 40% of the dose from all nuclear tests put together. Check the table at the bottom. I recall reading that the particular isotopes released by the explosion were worse than those from nuclear tests for some reason, but I haven't been able to locate the source of that information.
If you live in America, it is indeed illegal to modify your own hardware in order to bypass copy protection or access controls on copyrighted works. Technically, if you take a Sharpie to the edge of a copy-protected CD to get it to play in your PC, you've committed a felony. Download a "crack" or no-cd "fix" for a game? Go to jail. Thank our friend the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which prohibits any circumvention of copy protection or access controls -- and also makes it a crime to "traffic" in the technologies to do so.
I really am not comfortable with the idea of going back in time to revoke someone's doctorate unless academic misconduct led to its granting in the first place. This is part of a general principle: Once you assign the degree, no post-degree behavior should alter your judgement that this person fulfilled the requiremens for the degree. I don't care if you turn out to be a dictator, a Communist, a conservative, a liar, a child molester, a monk, a mass murderer, or a plumber. You met the requirements and earned the degree -- it's that simple. Degrees are not a measure of your worth as a human being -- they are certification that you successfully met a series of requirements, none of which include being a decent and honorable person.
Now if you got the degree through academic malfeasance, that's a different matter -- but I checked the article and all of this guy's sins seem to have been post-graduation.
You are referring to dark matter: the "missing mass" problem. There isn't enough mass to account for the fact the universe is expanding (and apparently is nearly flat). Hence, there must be some form of matter we cannot see, i.e. dark matter.
.
Dark energy is a second conundrum which does not depend on the mere fact the universe is expanding. It is a puzzle generated by the fact that the rate of expansion seems to be increasing! It's as if something is actively pushing space apart; since gravity grows weaker with distance the push becomes more and more important as the universe expands. Hence the "cosmological constant" -- it would provide a constant push that would initially be overwhelmed by gravity (so the expansion of the universe would begin to slow) but would remain constant everywhere regardless of distance and would thus overcome gravity over very large distances. The result? A universe that goes "bang," inflates rapidly, and then begins to slow down as space expands. Forward billions of years...and the slow expansion starts to speed up again, faster and faster until everything flies a p a r t . .
I actually RTFA and this is the quote that grabbed me:
" The most notable demo starred Sega's own Sonic the Hedgehog. The demo proper was displayed in the top DS screen and featured Sonic running through a familiar island setting. You could control Sonic's movements by using the stylus on the lower touch screen. Tapping the screen made Sonic jump, while sliding the stylus across the power meter style image on the lower screen let you build up Sonic's speed. The more you slid the stylus, the faster an onscreen meter built up. Every time the meter filled, Sonic's speed would bump up to a higher level. Another component of the demo let you manipulate the camera on Sonic--you could switch between different angles on the fly by tapping icons on the touchscreen. The graphics in the demo looked good and ran at a smooth clip. Texture detail and polygon count were respectable but didn't quite match the quality of console hardware. The effects used as Sonic's speed leveled up were pretty slick and made use of a wide variety of color and particle effects."
This business of using someone else's trademarks (and copyrighted work) for commercial purposes just can't be a smart move, even if it was done in jest. Has there been some Nintendo-Sega agreement of which I am unaware?
Watch out for those "always" and "never" statements. A couple of states did pass UCITA and a few court decisions have upheld parts of EULAs. On the other hand, some states passed laws making EULAs non-binding and New York courts rejected them as contract. It all depends on what state you're in -- most of them haven't adjudicated the issue yet.
1. Minors can enter into contracts, but in most cases they also have the right to cancel them (therefore, few people will sign a contract with a minor). Cancelling a contract means the minor must return the property.
2. Amending terms of sale can be legal if it's part of a contract, though all sorts of interesting "consideration" issues come up. It's really remarkable how many "rights" you can sign away in a contract.
3. The consideration for the EULA is the use of the software/music itself. This is the "you own the media but we own the code" model. Most courts will look at the opportunity for the purchaser to know the license terms prior to sale -- ie printing them on the box is better than making them available on a website is better than hiding them on the CD itself. Still, courts can be remarkably business-friendly places.
4. Again, some courts have ruled that click-through agreements are valid. A four-year-old summary of prior cases is available online.
5. This is an interesting scenario, and in all the cases of which I'm aware, there were other issues that resolved the case without forcing the judge to reach a decision about circumventing the EULA.
1. Patches
2. Antivirus -- Antivir
3. Anti-adware -- Ad-Aware
4. Images -- IrfanView
5. Sound -- Winamp
6. Video -- Media Player Classic with RealAlternative and QuickAlternative
7. Email -- anything but Outlook Express; I use Eudora
8. Adobe Reader -- I like the antialiasing...
9. MS Office -- Yeah, I know...
10. FTP -- WS_FTP LE
Since the corn farmers of Iowa have made ethanol a political litmus-test for presidential nominees, the American people have been stuck paying huge amounts (something like $30 for each $1 of profit earned by ethanol sales) to provide "corn welfare" benefits. Do you really think that such a powerful lobby will allow imports of a cheaper type of ethanol?
Expect to hear planted stories about the unhealthiness/antienvironmental harms of the "new" ethanol, followed by urgent Congre$$ional action to shut off the flow of cheap foreign ethanol (and amend such a ban to include Americans who might get the idea of making ethanol from products other than corn). This isn't tinfoil-hat stuff, just the depressing reality of democratic politics: when the public isn't interested in an issue, naked interest-group politics takes precedence.
You are confusing means and ends. The problem is that piracy without a profit motive shouldn't be a crime. The proper place for a company that believes someone is denying it profits is a civil court, ala the RIAA lawsuits. In fact, this is exactly the system we had in the US until a few years ago. The No Electronic Theft Act (which criminalized copyright violation without a profit motive) is a recent development, passed in December 1997. Prior to this, what Fairlight and others were doing was called a tort, not a crime.
Put simply: We don't imprison reckless or drunk surgeons, the heads of monopolies, patent and trademark infringers, or lawyers that don't bother to put on a case for their client. Instead, we allow those who can prove they were injured by these people to file civil lawsuits. The same should be true of copyright infringement. Would you support a law throwing patent infringers into prison? How about employees that steal employer time by goofing off on the job? What about trademark infringers like (outside the US) the Lindows folks? What makes copyright so special in comparison to other forms of intellectual property, medical procedures, etc? These people don't belong in prison.
Actually, Russia abandoned its No First Use (NFU) doctrine after the end of the Cold War. It no longer renounces the first use of nuclear weapons. As you pointed out, the US has never renounced first use. I know Pakistan and Israel have not. Britain recently stated it might reply to a non-nuclear WMD attack with nuclear weapons, and NATO (including Britain and France) reserves the option as well. Only two states still have NFU. China has always had an unconditional NFU doctrine. India has been under internal pressure to abandon its own NFU pledge.
A comprehensive summary of existing policies is available at this site.
Have you read the Constitution?
Article VI, Section 2 says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Put simply, the Constitution and treaties are both the supreme law of the land, though the same is true for laws only if they are made "in pursuance thereof" the Constitution. Now in Reid v. Covert the Supreme Court said that treaties had to be constitutional, but we made it 150 years without that decision and it could be reversed one day. More importantly, Reid only bars the US government from acting unconstitutionally in pursuance to a treaty; it does not bar the other side from acting in ways that would be impermissible in our own country. Finally, this merely prohibits treaties that explicitly violate one or more Constitutional provisions, yet there is no provision barring, say, extradition to a UN tribunal.
2. The Supremes have repreatedly ruled that in fact, the US government preceded the Constitution, not the other way around. The logic goes like this. First, the US existed prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation and prio to that as independent states. Second, the framers were not signing a suicide pact. Nothing in the Constitution was intended to prevent the country from surviving. This is the rationale for allowing searches at the border (or even near the border) that would be impermissible in the interior of the country. This rationale could easily be extended to treaties, given the Supremes' reluctance to hear cases about foreign affairs.
3. We already extradite to countries without the protections of the US Constitution. Interestingly, we've even allowed extradition to a few countries with whom we have no such treaty! (18 U.S.C. 3184). Courts treat extradition as a civil matter, not a criminal one, so that questions about most trial rights are irrelevant (as are questions about the procedures used by the other country).
...since they have a habit of censoring just about everything under the sun.
:)
The C stands for Censorship. After all of this, what's left to justify broadband?