If the pilot proves that the technology works they should make these devices totally optional, but not actually have them govern the speed at all. Instead they should reward drivers for not exceeding the speed limit. So if you don't exceed the speed limit for the month you get your £8/day and if you do you get zip... or maybe make the payout on a weekly/daily basis. Anyways, with this option more people would sign up and maybe you'd end up having a greater net effect on speeding.
The problem in Great Britian isn't the # of kilometers of roads they have it's the fact that all of the drivers drive on the wrong side of the roads hich means you always have to dodge those crazy brits.
I prefer 70-85 on I285 and GA 400. As long as it's not 7:30 - 9:00 or 3:30 - 7:00 on a weekday this speed limit works pretty well... if you KNOW how to drive, have good eyesight and aren't talking on your cell phone!
Fight improper application of the patent laws, but keep the right to protect your ideas from those that would take them from you.
Here here! You are absolutely right. Patents on trivial discoveries (1-click purchases) or ambiguous patents (communication between two digital devices via some means or another) should be stopped, but the ability patent real discoveries or innovations should be protected.
Provide an example of how US politics has influenced the administration of the root domain system. Has the US terminated a country's TLD? Are they threatening to do this if other country's don't comply with their foreign, trade, or other policies?
I'm not saying that control of the DNS sytem should remain w/ the US, end of story. What I am saying is that this system has worked for 25 years and because of its vital importance to global economies we shouldn't shift the balance of power without being certain that we wouldn't be putting ourselves in a situation that was far worse then what we have today. A non-political one-government DNS controller is better than a political multi-government DNS controller, with the best solution being a non-political multi-government controller. I want to get to the best solution, but the current alternatives don't fit the bill. If the U.S. starts threatening to use its control of the DNS infrastructure for political reasons then migrating off of the single government approach would make sense... but until then, we need to move cautiously.
I believe the only normal way to handle this situation is to create a new international body or modify ICAAN, creating a fair representation of the current internet.
Why would anyone EVER want to inject international politics into a critical technical infrastructure? The last thing we need is for governments to see the DNS system as a political tool.
It is true that the USA has a hist(o|e)rical control over the DNS system, but that doesn't mean anything
Historical control (and a track record for stability) mean a lot to me. I may think things could be organized better or understand that other s have a stake too and may want to have that stake reflected, but that doesn't mean that historical control, ownership, doesn't have some value especially when the system has worked for 25 years.
They must retain control of the root servers so that if there is a terrorist attack, they can shut down the internet.
Shutting down the Internet would have a similar economic impact of a large terrorist attack. Furthermore, if their intention is to limit communications... well shutting down DNS wouldn't do jack b/c any terrorist worth his salt is going to use IP addresses exclusively or work off of private domains servers.
Everyone who thinks that beuorcrats, politics and technology go well together raise your hands... now please leave. I know the term "Bush Administration" is a trigger for blind hatred and rhetoric on par with "Microsoft", but this isn't a bad thing. The U.S. has managed these DNS servers for 25 years and has kept the process from being political. The U.S. currently has a significant ECONOMIC (forget "security") stake in ensuring that these domain servers are maintained and stable. ICANN or a world political body does not have the same motiviation. They're motivated by making a name for themselves, expanding their country's control over the Internet, retaliating against other governments for non-Internet policy decisions, etc. A solution to having a single government control such an important resource should be found in order to prevent abuse, but that solution must GUARANTEE that we are reducing the potential for abuse of the system, not increasing it.
Don't interact w/ a summarized article. Read the actual statement from the US government. I wish these news sites would link to their sources when they're available.
My friend, it is good to see that you too have found a way to connect to the outside world while our Internet connection is down. -- This message brought to you by the good people at Practical Modern Solutions, the only IP over Camelback (IPoC) solution provider in the Islamabad area. Our service is only exceeded by our latency.
However... What those who make and enforce the laws fail to realize is that they breed utter contempt for the rule of law with unfair and unreasonable laws and decisions.
I agree... I think the point that needs to be made though is that people could care less about the law b/c they think it's bullshit. Let's stop trying to justify everything. Let's just say, the law sucks, I don't choose to abide by it, consequences or not, and would like to see it changed for these reasons.
I appreciate your post, it wasn't a flame and your comments about the DMCA were interesting and relevant.
The underlying argument that the poster I responded to made was "because I can, I do". The principle is not universal b/c it cannot in good consience be applied to something like theft or murder. The original argument wasn't even a logical argument at all... it was basically "Hey I can copy your stuff and you can't do anything about it so deal with it."
Even going a step further and trying to tame my example... let's say I can get into your house while you're away on vacation. I live there for the two weeks your away. I sleep in your bed. Watch TV. Use your computer, toothbrush, whatever. Before I leave I clean up after myself and leave a few dollars to cover the cost of the utilities. Would you accept this as ok?
Another "abusrd" example? Here I apply the principle of "I can therefore I do" and "I don't take anything from you"... and yet we would all most likely agree that to enter your house and use your stuff w/o permission is not acceptable and is a crime. The point of the examples is to point out how absurd the logic is behind some of these arguments... but if that isn't being accomplished then I should probably try a different tack to make my point eh?
Bottom line. People want to copy stuff. The don't give a damn about the law, but for some reason or another they want to justify their actions. Why don't we all just admit that copyright violations are by defintion theft, but with "minimal" consequences for the producer when it is controlled to some extent, and we just want to do it. Quit with all the stupid rationalizations.
I like discussion... so I'm going to run w/ this... could be wrong.
Using a lossless compression system like FLAC or Windows Media Lossless you could get exact copies of a movie or song. With 4-mbit broadband connections at less than $50/month downloading big files wouldn't be a big issue. I think your right that TV shows and movie theater's wouldn't take a big hit, but some people would watch more of the free content (watch 3 or 4 episodes of the Sopranoes) instead of going out to watch a movie or the latest tv show (why not wait for it on bittorrent w/o the commercials?). With that smaller profit margin there is less incentive to produce risky or different tv or movies. You need to produce shows and music that have a broad appeal... e.g. more pop, more big blockbusters, more hype.
I think the industries would learn how to survive... and new industries and distribution system would likely emerge... most likely they'd quit selling you copies of anything and would have major incentive to pay-off hardware and software distributors for ultra-strong DRM.
Software is honestly what I'm concerned about, not entertainment. I guess software as a service would be the hot things for businesses to sell... so you would never have access to the code that runs your software.
My original post was modded troll and both comments to date have slammed the defintions themselves saying dismiss this definition as having been mechanically separated from someone's rectum and you read those definitions from a NewSpeak site. So I decided I'd check w/ another source, my PRINTED copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition. Printed in 1993. The first MP3 encoder was not publically released until July 1994. Obviously there have been conversations about copyright in the digital age, but prior to MP3 and Napster (released in 1999) this wasn't such a mainstream topic. Anyways... so here's how the definitions I cited, from DICTIONARY.COM held up.
Piracy - 2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
Theft - 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Stealing - 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property - 1c. Something tangible or intangible to which it sowner has legal title: properties such as copyrights.
All of the definitions are exactly the same, with the exception of property which ADDED "and trademarks" to the end of the defintion. These are english defintions folks. They've been commonplace for at least 12 years.
Thanks for a non-flameworthy response... I appreciate that and I think this type of communication fosters the exchanging of ideas not lame barbs and straw-man arguments.
I think the courts have had to interpret the existing laws against new forms of copying and have found that the old laws apply. Napster would be an example of this. This is part of the responsibility of the courts. As technology and the world changes we should reevaluate laws to see if they still apply or need additional clarification, but if we say that only apply to the existing circumstances then we have no ongoing protection b/c circumventing a law simply becomes a matter of demonstrating that technology or the world in general have changed sufficiently from the original intent of the law.
I'm with you on the patents... in that trivial "discoveries" should not be allowed to be patented.
Slashdot Mirror
If the pilot proves that the technology works they should make these devices totally optional, but not actually have them govern the speed at all. Instead they should reward drivers for not exceeding the speed limit. So if you don't exceed the speed limit for the month you get your £8/day and if you do you get zip... or maybe make the payout on a weekly/daily basis. Anyways, with this option more people would sign up and maybe you'd end up having a greater net effect on speeding.
The problem in Great Britian isn't the # of kilometers of roads they have it's the fact that all of the drivers drive on the wrong side of the roads hich means you always have to dodge those crazy brits.
:)
I kid... I kid.
I prefer 70-85 on I285 and GA 400. As long as it's not 7:30 - 9:00 or 3:30 - 7:00 on a weekday this speed limit works pretty well... if you KNOW how to drive, have good eyesight and aren't talking on your cell phone!
Fight improper application of the patent laws, but keep the right to protect your ideas from those that would take them from you.
Here here! You are absolutely right. Patents on trivial discoveries (1-click purchases) or ambiguous patents (communication between two digital devices via some means or another) should be stopped, but the ability patent real discoveries or innovations should be protected.
Provide an example of how US politics has influenced the administration of the root domain system. Has the US terminated a country's TLD? Are they threatening to do this if other country's don't comply with their foreign, trade, or other policies?
Apache doesn't use the GPL and last time I checked IIS was losing group to Apache.
I'm not saying that control of the DNS sytem should remain w/ the US, end of story. What I am saying is that this system has worked for 25 years and because of its vital importance to global economies we shouldn't shift the balance of power without being certain that we wouldn't be putting ourselves in a situation that was far worse then what we have today. A non-political one-government DNS controller is better than a political multi-government DNS controller, with the best solution being a non-political multi-government controller. I want to get to the best solution, but the current alternatives don't fit the bill. If the U.S. starts threatening to use its control of the DNS infrastructure for political reasons then migrating off of the single government approach would make sense... but until then, we need to move cautiously.
I believe the only normal way to handle this situation is to create a new international body or modify ICAAN, creating a fair representation of the current internet.
Why would anyone EVER want to inject international politics into a critical technical infrastructure? The last thing we need is for governments to see the DNS system as a political tool.
It is true that the USA has a hist(o|e)rical control over the DNS system, but that doesn't mean anything
Historical control (and a track record for stability) mean a lot to me. I may think things could be organized better or understand that other s have a stake too and may want to have that stake reflected, but that doesn't mean that historical control, ownership, doesn't have some value especially when the system has worked for 25 years.
They must retain control of the root servers so that if there is a terrorist attack, they can shut down the internet.
Shutting down the Internet would have a similar economic impact of a large terrorist attack. Furthermore, if their intention is to limit communications... well shutting down DNS wouldn't do jack b/c any terrorist worth his salt is going to use IP addresses exclusively or work off of private domains servers.
Everyone who thinks that beuorcrats, politics and technology go well together raise your hands... now please leave. I know the term "Bush Administration" is a trigger for blind hatred and rhetoric on par with "Microsoft", but this isn't a bad thing. The U.S. has managed these DNS servers for 25 years and has kept the process from being political. The U.S. currently has a significant ECONOMIC (forget "security") stake in ensuring that these domain servers are maintained and stable. ICANN or a world political body does not have the same motiviation. They're motivated by making a name for themselves, expanding their country's control over the Internet, retaliating against other governments for non-Internet policy decisions, etc. A solution to having a single government control such an important resource should be found in order to prevent abuse, but that solution must GUARANTEE that we are reducing the potential for abuse of the system, not increasing it.
Don't interact w/ a summarized article. Read the actual statement from the US government. I wish these news sites would link to their sources when they're available.
people who rape and murder often get less.
You're absolutely right... we need to kill those motherfuckers quick. Damn societal parasites.
I can run Eclipse on my Blu-Ray player!
I can't seem to find any screenshots. Has anyone seen the screenshots?
I was like textpad, very clean, no extra anything from a basic instal. But what made it different was you could import new modules (functions).
vi?
They release a new version of their software and their primary delivery servers in Pakistan are completely unavailable.
My friend, it is good to see that you too have found a way to connect to the outside world while our Internet connection is down.
--
This message brought to you by the good people at Practical Modern Solutions, the only IP over Camelback (IPoC) solution provider in the Islamabad area. Our service is only exceeded by our latency.
what else can you buy for $1031
Well... you've got yourself a good start on a great book collection.
Ahhhh, come on. That would mean that Disney couldn't but Snow White back in "The Disney Vault" and charge $22.99 for a DVD.
I like it! This is a very very good proposal.
However... What those who make and enforce the laws fail to realize is that they breed utter contempt for the rule of law with unfair and unreasonable laws and decisions.
I agree... I think the point that needs to be made though is that people could care less about the law b/c they think it's bullshit. Let's stop trying to justify everything. Let's just say, the law sucks, I don't choose to abide by it, consequences or not, and would like to see it changed for these reasons.
I appreciate your post, it wasn't a flame and your comments about the DMCA were interesting and relevant.
The underlying argument that the poster I responded to made was "because I can, I do". The principle is not universal b/c it cannot in good consience be applied to something like theft or murder. The original argument wasn't even a logical argument at all... it was basically "Hey I can copy your stuff and you can't do anything about it so deal with it."
Even going a step further and trying to tame my example... let's say I can get into your house while you're away on vacation. I live there for the two weeks your away. I sleep in your bed. Watch TV. Use your computer, toothbrush, whatever. Before I leave I clean up after myself and leave a few dollars to cover the cost of the utilities. Would you accept this as ok?
Another "abusrd" example? Here I apply the principle of "I can therefore I do" and "I don't take anything from you"... and yet we would all most likely agree that to enter your house and use your stuff w/o permission is not acceptable and is a crime. The point of the examples is to point out how absurd the logic is behind some of these arguments... but if that isn't being accomplished then I should probably try a different tack to make my point eh?
Bottom line. People want to copy stuff. The don't give a damn about the law, but for some reason or another they want to justify their actions. Why don't we all just admit that copyright violations are by defintion theft, but with "minimal" consequences for the producer when it is controlled to some extent, and we just want to do it. Quit with all the stupid rationalizations.
I like discussion... so I'm going to run w/ this... could be wrong.
Using a lossless compression system like FLAC or Windows Media Lossless you could get exact copies of a movie or song. With 4-mbit broadband connections at less than $50/month downloading big files wouldn't be a big issue. I think your right that TV shows and movie theater's wouldn't take a big hit, but some people would watch more of the free content (watch 3 or 4 episodes of the Sopranoes) instead of going out to watch a movie or the latest tv show (why not wait for it on bittorrent w/o the commercials?). With that smaller profit margin there is less incentive to produce risky or different tv or movies. You need to produce shows and music that have a broad appeal... e.g. more pop, more big blockbusters, more hype.
I think the industries would learn how to survive... and new industries and distribution system would likely emerge... most likely they'd quit selling you copies of anything and would have major incentive to pay-off hardware and software distributors for ultra-strong DRM.
Software is honestly what I'm concerned about, not entertainment. I guess software as a service would be the hot things for businesses to sell... so you would never have access to the code that runs your software.
My original post was modded troll and both comments to date have slammed the defintions themselves saying dismiss this definition as having been mechanically separated from someone's rectum and you read those definitions from a NewSpeak site. So I decided I'd check w/ another source, my PRINTED copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition. Printed in 1993. The first MP3 encoder was not publically released until July 1994. Obviously there have been conversations about copyright in the digital age, but prior to MP3 and Napster (released in 1999) this wasn't such a mainstream topic. Anyways... so here's how the definitions I cited, from DICTIONARY.COM held up.
Piracy - 2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
Theft - 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Stealing - 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property - 1c. Something tangible or intangible to which it sowner has legal title: properties such as copyrights.
All of the definitions are exactly the same, with the exception of property which ADDED "and trademarks" to the end of the defintion. These are english defintions folks. They've been commonplace for at least 12 years.
The right to copy is the intangible here. So by copying the original owners work, you have "taken" that right w/o permission.
Thanks for a non-flameworthy response... I appreciate that and I think this type of communication fosters the exchanging of ideas not lame barbs and straw-man arguments.
I think the courts have had to interpret the existing laws against new forms of copying and have found that the old laws apply. Napster would be an example of this. This is part of the responsibility of the courts. As technology and the world changes we should reevaluate laws to see if they still apply or need additional clarification, but if we say that only apply to the existing circumstances then we have no ongoing protection b/c circumventing a law simply becomes a matter of demonstrating that technology or the world in general have changed sufficiently from the original intent of the law.
I'm with you on the patents... in that trivial "discoveries" should not be allowed to be patented.