The "doing it" in Schmidt's quote appears to be a reference to "doing an online search", and the point he makes is that the search data exists and is retained. Whether you think it's fair or not, it's reality, so act accordingly.
For instance, let's say you have a small penis. If you walk down the street naked, do you really expect your neighbors to either 1) not notice or 2) be restricted from revealing that piece of data? You put it out there - deal with the consequences, regardless of how "fair" you think they are.
"Are the searches your property, or Googles? Really, if, truly, everything you write on the internet is your content, then you should have the right to revoke the distribution of that content. You can't have strong property rights only when it is convenient, you know."
Let me answer your question - they are not "property" at all. They do not rise to the level of "intellectual property", in that they are not a creative work. They there's the whole distinction between actual property and "intellectual property".
A Google search is a request from you to a private entity for certain information. That form of speech is neither constitutionally protected (private entity) nor legally protected (not IP). It may have legal protection from laws written for privacy per se, but it's nothing inherent to the medium or the content of the request.
For instance, if you ask a librarian where to find books on bald eagles, there is nothing but her own conscience and possibly local policy or statute to prevent her fram saying "That guy just asked about bald eagles." And if she is required to testify at your trial for hunting bald eagles, she is compelled to tell the truth to the best of her ability. She has no relationship with you involving priviledged communication. And neither does Google. Don't like it? Change the law.
"Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money."
Or, they will say "Oops", rev the software to eliminate the code, and push the update. Now they aren't distributing anymore. Pay a nominal settlement to cover court costs, and life goes on.
Or, they buy the commercial license at VERY attractive rates, considering the other option is for Artifex is $0 licensing revenue.
"So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?"
The difference is that now people who get brain cancer won't have someone to blame. In our modern culture and legal system, there simply is no such thing as "shit happens". If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault. There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate". It's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse.
"Edward R. Murrow was also a columnist, at least in terms of the work people most remember him for. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who broke Watergate, those guys are journalists."
Given the states of "journalism" in the era's personified by those names, I don't think you are doing your argument any favors.
"These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc."
To the contrary - these are EXACTLY the "days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc." They are the ones that issued in the modern area of "investigative" journalism (inadvertently or not). The modern journalist's daydreams consist of being the one to take down a presidency and having to decide if Hoffman or Redford will play him in the movie. Given that, what else do we expect from them?
It uses cold water from a central plant and then it gets cooled back down by a chiller/heat pump. The condenser water off the heat pump is then used to heat homes. Basically, the plant is rejecting it's heat into the local housing system.
The part about thermoelectric devices is a total non-sequiter.
"It seems that the general population here at slashdot are assuming that these oil-tankers are full of trained marines that are not allowed to carry guns. It's really not that way. These sailors are just trained seaman that know how to operate a modern ship. They might not even be trained in the use of guns. Pitting them against people with AK-47s is really asking for them to die."
And the "pirates" are fishermen. Do you know what the "training" to operate an AK-47 is? "Move this big lever first. Point. Pull trigger". Aim? no need - the guns are there for intimidation, not effectiveness.
Let me turn your question around: why is it that the population on Slashdot assumes that the pirates are poor, starving fishermen driven to this life, and then they become highly equipped, ruthlessly trained, steely eyed commandos?
How so? The Executive writes it, The Senate approves it's and the Courts interprets it. It's the converse of legislation, where the Congress writes it, the President signs it, and the SC judges it. Where's the missing element?
Okay, here we go (all numbers from Wikipedia)(and yes, I AM using English units - I'm doing the math)
Arleigh Burke class destroyer, current US naval inventory: - 8315 tons displacement for the lightest version - Top Speed: Over 30 knots. Let's just call it 30 for argument.
Using the law of conservation of momentum, in order to stop a ship dead cold (mush less "reverse" it), the projectile from our hypothetical spud gun/air cannon would need to equal that of the destroyer. Since I don't have the specs, and assuming your friend had unlimited resource, I'll use the following as a proxy:
16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun (off an Iowa class battleship) - Muzzle Velocity: 2690 ft/sec - Projectile weight: 2700 pounds
So, doing the conversions and the math, the momentum of the ship at 30 knots is 8.42E8 lb*ft/sec. Yes, junior - 842 Million and change. The shell has 7.26E5 lb*ft/sec. That's less than 1% of the momentum required to stop a destroyer. And that is a gun that could throw a shell the size of a small car over 20 miles. When the punkin' chunkin's can do that, give me a call.
Having read the document, it appears to be more of a legalese document than ideological. There are very few actual "objections" to the US proposals; rather "What does this mean?", "We don't use that terminology in the EU", and "Part A conflicts with Part B - what's the deal?"
I'm also curious as to the background. Apparently the EU delegation declined to publish a proposal; rather, they decided to comment on the US proposal. So, is the reason:
a) The US is such a bully in the negotiations that the EU didn't really HAVE a choice to put forth a moderate proposal, and are still too cowed to object in writing?
b) They decided to focus on 1 document as the base and modify it, as opposed to trying to merge 2 different documents?
c) They decided to let the US be the stalking horse and provide cover for the EU delegation, and then playing Br'er Rabbit when it gets closer to ratification - "Please don't make me sign that treaty, big bad US!"
Having negotiated contracts, etc. I'm betting on b). If it was a) Europeans should be ashamed their negotiators are such pussies. If it was b), Americans should be ashamed our negotiators are so gullible. Of course, looking at the result of US-Soviet arms talks, perhaps C) is the more likely.
"he boat is worthless for purposes other than piracy."
Then burn it for fucking firewood and keep yourself warm.
Having received the shitty end of the stick, even the REALLY shitty end, is not an excuse for their actions. It is possible to have pity for someone yet still hold them accountable - why have we forgotten that?
Another question - if the ONLY option faced by ALL the fishermen in Somalia is piracy, why are they not all doing it? Perhaps there are other options than piracy - others seem to have chosen not to take to the high seas.
"Expected, maybe not, but certainly advised. Faced with a potentially violent kidnapper, who in most cases will have the upper hand (if the kidnapping is even slightly well planned), the fight option is likely to get you needlessly injured or killed. Any sane country advises it's citizens to do exactly that -- lie down and surrender. It simply offers the best chance of survival."
That's NOT why they "recommend" it, or I should say, not the REAL reason. Why will "the fight option... get you needlessly injured or killed?" Because those "sane" countries have been systematically taking away effective means of self defense from it's citizenry. And they don't do this to keep their citizens safe - they do this to keep themselves safe. And it's easier to do the paperwork on a rape than a homicide.
"Of course something needs to be done, but shooting them all is just ridiculous. There is no need for us to resort to behaving like animals. As someone already mentioned, most of the guys doing the groundwork are young and desperate -- in many cases, their choice will be to let their family die of starvation and disease, or join the pirates. "
Really? Let's extend your simile. The pirates are ALREADY "behaving like animals." The humane response isn't to continue to accommodate their behavior, but either discipline them, or put them down. When confronted with a wild dog, we don't let it gnaw on our arm because it's hungry and may starve in the wild - we either kill it or capture it (which will likely lead to it's death anyway.)
"This is an excellent point, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Most of these pirates are people under the age of 21, and most do it out of necessity. Bringing weapons into it would just turn a bad situation into a killing field."
And the down-side is?
The people being killed are also the ones most likely to join or to have been in the militia's/"insurgent" groups that made Somalia a living hell to begin with.
"If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen."
The attacks are not IN territorial waters - they are in international waters - aka the High Seas - and that's what makes it piracy. If it was in territorial waters it would be simple armed robbery.
It's almost like you took a list of bullet points from the Brady Campaign and just substituted "pirate" for "assailant". I'm even waiting for "The crew of a merchant ship is more likely to be killed using their own weapons than to kill a pirate."
While I agree with you, how "insightful" can it be? When people tried to say the same things about the Bush administartion, they were decried as dupes and apologists. I had one guy actually arguing with me that it was Bush's fault that the White House went with a commercial CMS system for the White House website - in 2002!
Slashdot Mirror
The "doing it" in Schmidt's quote appears to be a reference to "doing an online search", and the point he makes is that the search data exists and is retained. Whether you think it's fair or not, it's reality, so act accordingly.
For instance, let's say you have a small penis. If you walk down the street naked, do you really expect your neighbors to either 1) not notice or 2) be restricted from revealing that piece of data? You put it out there - deal with the consequences, regardless of how "fair" you think they are.
I saw that report too and was revolted. It's as if the lessons from VietNam were read 2 totally different ways:
Public: If you don't support the war, then support the troops. Help them.
Government: People who have seen and done violence are unstable and a threat. Watch them.
Let me answer your question - they are not "property" at all. They do not rise to the level of "intellectual property", in that they are not a creative work. They there's the whole distinction between actual property and "intellectual property".
A Google search is a request from you to a private entity for certain information. That form of speech is neither constitutionally protected (private entity) nor legally protected (not IP). It may have legal protection from laws written for privacy per se, but it's nothing inherent to the medium or the content of the request.
For instance, if you ask a librarian where to find books on bald eagles, there is nothing but her own conscience and possibly local policy or statute to prevent her fram saying "That guy just asked about bald eagles." And if she is required to testify at your trial for hunting bald eagles, she is compelled to tell the truth to the best of her ability. She has no relationship with you involving priviledged communication. And neither does Google. Don't like it? Change the law.
"Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money."
Or, they will say "Oops", rev the software to eliminate the code, and push the update. Now they aren't distributing anymore. Pay a nominal settlement to cover court costs, and life goes on.
Or, they buy the commercial license at VERY attractive rates, considering the other option is for Artifex is $0 licensing revenue.
I was a reference to a previous article. I'd normally just go with "Whoooosh!", but I'm not feeling that snarky today.
"So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?"
The difference is that now people who get brain cancer won't have someone to blame. In our modern culture and legal system, there simply is no such thing as "shit happens". If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault. There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate". It's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse.
"What's important is that there is separation between government-funded media outlets and the government that funds them,"
Money=power. There may be separation on paper, and even in practice during the good times, but when things get sour people who have power exercise it.
"Edward R. Murrow was also a columnist, at least in terms of the work people most remember him for. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who broke Watergate, those guys are journalists."
Given the states of "journalism" in the era's personified by those names, I don't think you are doing your argument any favors.
"These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc."
To the contrary - these are EXACTLY the "days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc." They are the ones that issued in the modern area of "investigative" journalism (inadvertently or not). The modern journalist's daydreams consist of being the one to take down a presidency and having to decide if Hoffman or Redford will play him in the movie. Given that, what else do we expect from them?
Haggis and the glottal stop
Does Europe not produce competent electrical engineers? I mean, their plugs are so superior...
It uses cold water from a central plant and then it gets cooled back down by a chiller/heat pump. The condenser water off the heat pump is then used to heat homes. Basically, the plant is rejecting it's heat into the local housing system.
The part about thermoelectric devices is a total non-sequiter.
FREEEEEE-BIRD!
One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.
Who labeled this informative? A single chicken will lay eggs just fine; if you want them fertilized you need 2.
"It seems that the general population here at slashdot are assuming that these oil-tankers are full of trained marines that are not allowed to carry guns. It's really not that way. These sailors are just trained seaman that know how to operate a modern ship. They might not even be trained in the use of guns. Pitting them against people with AK-47s is really asking for them to die."
And the "pirates" are fishermen. Do you know what the "training" to operate an AK-47 is? "Move this big lever first. Point. Pull trigger". Aim? no need - the guns are there for intimidation, not effectiveness.
Let me turn your question around: why is it that the population on Slashdot assumes that the pirates are poor, starving fishermen driven to this life, and then they become highly equipped, ruthlessly trained, steely eyed commandos?
How so? The Executive writes it, The Senate approves it's and the Courts interprets it. It's the converse of legislation, where the Congress writes it, the President signs it, and the SC judges it. Where's the missing element?
Oh, for the love of all that's holy...
Okay, here we go (all numbers from Wikipedia)(and yes, I AM using English units - I'm doing the math)
Arleigh Burke class destroyer, current US naval inventory:
- 8315 tons displacement for the lightest version
- Top Speed: Over 30 knots. Let's just call it 30 for argument.
Using the law of conservation of momentum, in order to stop a ship dead cold (mush less "reverse" it), the projectile from our hypothetical spud gun/air cannon would need to equal that of the destroyer. Since I don't have the specs, and assuming your friend had unlimited resource, I'll use the following as a proxy:
16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun (off an Iowa class battleship)
- Muzzle Velocity: 2690 ft/sec
- Projectile weight: 2700 pounds
So, doing the conversions and the math, the momentum of the ship at 30 knots is 8.42E8 lb*ft/sec. Yes, junior - 842 Million and change. The shell has 7.26E5 lb*ft/sec. That's less than 1% of the momentum required to stop a destroyer. And that is a gun that could throw a shell the size of a small car over 20 miles. When the punkin' chunkin's can do that, give me a call.
So, yes: THINK before you post.
Having read the document, it appears to be more of a legalese document than ideological. There are very few actual "objections" to the US proposals; rather "What does this mean?", "We don't use that terminology in the EU", and "Part A conflicts with Part B - what's the deal?"
I'm also curious as to the background. Apparently the EU delegation declined to publish a proposal; rather, they decided to comment on the US proposal. So, is the reason:
a) The US is such a bully in the negotiations that the EU didn't really HAVE a choice to put forth a moderate proposal, and are still too cowed to object in writing?
b) They decided to focus on 1 document as the base and modify it, as opposed to trying to merge 2 different documents?
c) They decided to let the US be the stalking horse and provide cover for the EU delegation, and then playing Br'er Rabbit when it gets closer to ratification - "Please don't make me sign that treaty, big bad US!"
Having negotiated contracts, etc. I'm betting on b). If it was a) Europeans should be ashamed their negotiators are such pussies. If it was b), Americans should be ashamed our negotiators are so gullible. Of course, looking at the result of US-Soviet arms talks, perhaps C) is the more likely.
"he boat is worthless for purposes other than piracy."
Then burn it for fucking firewood and keep yourself warm.
Having received the shitty end of the stick, even the REALLY shitty end, is not an excuse for their actions. It is possible to have pity for someone yet still hold them accountable - why have we forgotten that?
Another question - if the ONLY option faced by ALL the fishermen in Somalia is piracy, why are they not all doing it? Perhaps there are other options than piracy - others seem to have chosen not to take to the high seas.
That's NOT why they "recommend" it, or I should say, not the REAL reason. Why will "the fight option ... get you needlessly injured or killed?" Because those "sane" countries have been systematically taking away effective means of self defense from it's citizenry. And they don't do this to keep their citizens safe - they do this to keep themselves safe. And it's easier to do the paperwork on a rape than a homicide.
Really? Let's extend your simile. The pirates are ALREADY "behaving like animals." The humane response isn't to continue to accommodate their behavior, but either discipline them, or put them down. When confronted with a wild dog, we don't let it gnaw on our arm because it's hungry and may starve in the wild - we either kill it or capture it (which will likely lead to it's death anyway.)
Simile's are fun, yes?
"This is an excellent point, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Most of these pirates are people under the age of 21, and most do it out of necessity. Bringing weapons into it would just turn a bad situation into a killing field."
And the down-side is?
The people being killed are also the ones most likely to join or to have been in the militia's/"insurgent" groups that made Somalia a living hell to begin with.
"If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen."
The attacks are not IN territorial waters - they are in international waters - aka the High Seas - and that's what makes it piracy. If it was in territorial waters it would be simple armed robbery.
It's almost like you took a list of bullet points from the Brady Campaign and just substituted "pirate" for "assailant". I'm even waiting for "The crew of a merchant ship is more likely to be killed using their own weapons than to kill a pirate."
"The recoil on it would actually drive the ship backwards in the water."
Please. Just think about what you are posting for 1 second before you hit "Enter".
While I agree with you, how "insightful" can it be? When people tried to say the same things about the Bush administartion, they were decried as dupes and apologists. I had one guy actually arguing with me that it was Bush's fault that the White House went with a commercial CMS system for the White House website - in 2002!