I wonder how many of them were promoted right before they retired? This seems to be pretty common and pretty self serving, they get a better retirement and they appear noble for expressing the 'truth'.
In the military, honest views should be expressed up the chain of command, not to the media. Breaking the chain of command is also called insubordination. The person at the top of the chain of command is called the Commander in Chief. Doesn't matter how far up you go in the military, you still have to follow the chain of command. In my unit, marines that broke the chain of command had to carry around 20 pounds of stainless steel chain. It didn't happen often.
I would be surprised if Retired Admiral Fallon doesn't enter politics ala Retired General Wesley Clark, another brave soul who improved his pension while bravely telling the 'truth'.
"violating the rules of war as they existed at the time."
Baloney. It takes two to decide what the rules of war are. It's not like the British, or anyone else at that time, published a set of rules concerning warfare, or had a treaty with the colonists, or even recognized the colonists as having any rights at all. The British Empire didn't get where it did by obeying rules of warfare. What they did to the Irish, Scots, Indians, Africans, etc, would make your blood curl.
Calling Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc terrorists is something I would expect a 4th grade history teacher to do or maybe just a 4th grader.
I'm sure it wouldn't take long to make a list of problems that need solutions:
Social Security (Baby boomers retiring)
Health Care (1/4 of teen girls with STDs, Baby boomeers retiring)
Prison Overcrowding (1 out of 100 Americans?!?)
Corporate Tax Loopholes (I pay more then some multinational cause they have really good accountants)
Infrastructure (Built before the baby boomers were born)
etc...
It is the job of Congress to address these issues. Instead, the members of our Congress are more interested in advancing their own careers and getting reelected (which means tearing down the other side). It's hard to argue that America deserves better, cause we keep sending the same people back to Washington every year.
Both parties are going to end up running Senators for President. My question is 'If they have the solution to America's problems, why didn't they introduce their solutions in the Senate?'. If their solution requires them to be President to work, then I doubt that I will like the solution.
More likely they don't have the solution, just monumental egos.
Robert Anton Wilson had it right. We're in the 5th phase of government, Bureaucracry, which lasts until we run out of paper (and they have a committee to fix that).
That is funny, but the parent is correct that Apple could very well be declared a monopoly on the music downloads and devices market (both of which they own). Microsoft is a monopoly on the x86 desktop market, so don't think it can't happen.
It still boggles my mind that Microsoft could be declared a monopoly on a chipset that Intel dominates and yet Intel was spared the monopoly label. Sure, AMD has come a long way, but Intel is still over 70% of the x86 market.
Personally, I'd rather just see the other manufacturers compete, as an anti-trust ruling would just mean places like Europe could start demanding protection money, er, fines. Greedy 'peans.
It was the waves of barbarians against the christians that resulted in the darkages, so I'm not sure how you can blame the dark ages on the christians.
I've observed that slashdot Atheist are much more opposed to Christianity then any of the other religions. Even when there is a story about a different religion, the discussion almost always ends up attacking and/or ridiculing Christians.
The slashdot Atheists seem to share a common belief that the world would be much more advanced with out Christianity, which is arguably wrong.
You could choose worse systems of governance, even today.
Science vs religion is silly. This is the first item on your linked page...
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day --- from the link you posted
But the universe was still really hot, so hot that ordinary atoms couldn't even exist. Electrons caused very small packets of light called photons to scatter continuously, and if you can believe it, light was actually linked, or coupled, to the particles, causing the whole universe to glow. This is the stage that scientists like to call the primordial soup because the universe looked like a plasma "soup" of protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, etc ---http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html Science tells us that everything in the universe, you, me, the chair, the earth, the moon, the sun, all the stars and all the galaxies were once homogenous and compressed into an area the size of a pin head. Religion tells us that God is everywhere in you, me, the chair, the earth, the moon, the sun, all the stars and all the galaxies. I don't see the inherent conflict.
You and yours want to define taking a movie (from Hollywood?) as not stealing. It's kind of hard to argue against that position without saying the word 'steal'. I'm fine with using the word take or share.
How do you feel about someone taking your videos and sharing them? Is that okay in your new and improved system? If not, then where do you draw the line? Is it only okay to share derivative crap? If so, then why would we want that?
Some people are using p2p to share their works and many of them are doing well. I'm not arguing against that. There are also lots of other movements stirring on the web that seek to bypass Hollywood. If you want to support those efforts, no one is stopping you.
I never said it was the Governments job to prop up a 'broken' business model nor do I agree that the business model is broken. If it is so broken, why is it that you are so intent on taking things from it? Sounds more than a little bit hypocritical.
"Even more people than previously might be able to enjoy the movie if only the monopoly right didn't exist."
Your system will not result in more people enjoying the movie because you intentionally leave out the cost of making the original. Your system benefits only a few and would result in depriving everyone of movies in the future because they would no longer be made.
Are there any limits in your system? Is it just big studio films or anything that is in a digital format? Where exactly is the line or is there none? Is it just the cost of reproduction that determines what is 'free'?
I think these are valid questions to ask before throwing out a 'broken' business model that has 80+ years of giving people things they enjoy and from which you want to keep stealing. I don't side with the RIAA and deplore their tactics, but I won't be on your side until you and yours can show me and mine that you can produce something worth stealing.
"It's arguably doing damage to the community for the movie to not be freely available."
How exactly is the community being damaged? Which community are we talking about? Certainly were not talking about the 'community' that created the movie.
"The cost of the movie is likely too high for many people who might otherwise enjoy it."
Then those people should wait until it comes out on cable, or go rent the dvd, or wait until it is shown on TV. Why not cut out the middle man and advocate mugging people at the theatre and taking their tickets? I'm sure there are people who would enjoy having sex with your Mom, wife, whatever, but the cost is just too high. Maybe you should discuss your new ideas with them.
"The existence of electronic distribution means this balance needs to be re-thought."
Why would you think so? The existence of key duplicating machines doesn't mean we should throw open our doors.
"The ability to make a copy so cheaply means that the amount of damage to society being done by the granted monopoly right is correspondingly greater. Even more people than previously might be able to enjoy the movie if only the monopoly right didn't exist."
Well why wait until the movie is finished? Why not demand that dailies are posted on the web? I'm sure people would enjoy them.
All of your ideas sound great, but you conveniently forget the cost of the first copy. When someone goes to a theatre and buys a ticket, they are paying for the cost of making the original. Yes, they are watching a copy, which cost only a few dollars to make, but they are paying for the original work, as well as the marketing, distribution and the minimum wage earned by the people at their theatres.
No, they'll agree with you, but only if it is in defense of their property. The same people who wouldn't think twice about downloading a movie or cd are the same people who think Tivoization is theft.
If we wait until we have fusion (big if), we won't have to send so many supplies. Just send the fusion plant beforehand and it could generate air and water while the volunteer is on the way.
Still, I hate the time and energy so many spend on going to Mars. It's a dead end. It's just a big, cold, desert at the bottom of a gravity well. Landing a man on the Moon was a giant leap, landing one on Mars is a giant waste.
Look it up for yourself, but Eli had a working assembly line and replaceable parts, both innovations ahead of their time. He was a genius and yet all we remember (are taught) is that he invented the cotton gin.
Before Eli Whitney, firearms were custom built by hand.
This is the 'new' science. First you have a theory, then you promote your theory, then someone takes a poll and then it becomes fact.
Computer simulations are acceptable proof in the 'new' science. Even flawed computer simulations are acceptable proof as they prove that the simulations are getting better.
Let's start by putting some detectors out in space that ping us every second. When the burst hits the sensors out there in space and destroys them we'll know here on Earth because the pings will stop. Put them out about a light year away and we'll have a whole year to prepare.
As a solution to the patent problem, it presupposes that companies will not use 'patent accounting' for their own purposes.
I think every patent should be reduced to it's simplest terms in one sentence:
'This patent covers taking a physical item and converting it to a digital proxy format and exchanging information about the status of the proxy item between multiple systems, where the physical item is a check.' - recently discussed here.
'This patent covers taking a physical item and seperating the item into its constituent parts, where the physical item is raw cotton.' - American genius Eli Whitney.
Then they can hire some patent examiners to walk the patent lists and convert every patent into simple language. Then everyone can more easily compare new applications with old patents. This would also make prior art easier to bring up in cases where the only change is the physical item.
I don't see MS using patents as a weapon, only for FUD and defense. I know that's kind of like saying the dragon only uses his teeth when close, but it's still true.
Personally, I'm not that worried about patents. Being sued usually presupposes a certain level of affluence and comes with the territory. As a citizen of the USA, I'm am worried. The patent for 'Scanning a check and exchanging information about the scanned check' is going to cost everyone money and make a few people rich. It about makes me sick.
The problem is how do you measure the income from an individual patent? Some products are covered by a wide range of patents, not always owned by the producer of the product. A cell phone, for example, will have multiple patents on not only the hardware, but also the software. That's just a cell phone. Try figuring out how to measure the income for each patent that is covered by a car or a chip fab.
Quickest way to get modded down is to present an opposing point of view.
Science is like an All-Star Game. The longer you've been top dog, the more likely you'll keep going to the show. Even after your skills decline and your only good for half the game and there's some rookie having a good year. If you try to bring up the rookie in a conversation, you'll get lots of blank looks and indignation to dare compare that new guy to the seasoned pro.
You want your theory to get respect, it either has to keep putting up the numbers year after year or be a Lebron and crush the competition from day one.
I don't think MS is trying to make Windows a better FOSS platform. Their stated goal is fluff. Does anyone really believe there is a demand for FOSS apps on Vista? Let me put on my tin foil hat.
I think it is much more likely that undermining GNU (linux) is the real goal. GNU seems like it is in an unassailable position being free and open, but there will be companies whose business model or ethics preclude using GNU (GPL) and they will jump at a proprietary (pirated) alternative. Additionally, UNG could weaken some claims of GPL violation that are based on using GNU tools and libraries, if UNG provides an alternative (big IF). A fully functioning UNG would make GPL updates more difficult, which I didn't think was possible.
I always thought Novel would be the ones to try to develop a UNG. Maybe MS got tired of waiting or maybe Novel is more useful as an 'early adopter'.
Or maybe this is just a fake. MS sure has announced a lot of stuff for 2009.
Never said that science is just opinion. Science is not about consensus and unanimity. Having more scientists saying something wrong is correct doesn't make it correct. We don't have to go back very far to prove this.
The laws of physics puts constraints on the idea, sure, but it doesn't invalidate the idea. And I don't really care if the design goal of 4 hours of 40 watt lighting is unachievable, it's the novelty of the idea I like.
Instead of trying to come up with a list of flaws, why not put your brain to use trying to come up with improvements? If the thing can be made to generate electricity for any amount of time it could be useful for a whole range of applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many of them were promoted right before they retired? This seems to be pretty common and pretty self serving, they get a better retirement and they appear noble for expressing the 'truth'.
In the military, honest views should be expressed up the chain of command, not to the media. Breaking the chain of command is also called insubordination. The person at the top of the chain of command is called the Commander in Chief. Doesn't matter how far up you go in the military, you still have to follow the chain of command. In my unit, marines that broke the chain of command had to carry around 20 pounds of stainless steel chain. It didn't happen often.
I would be surprised if Retired Admiral Fallon doesn't enter politics ala Retired General Wesley Clark, another brave soul who improved his pension while bravely telling the 'truth'.
"violating the rules of war as they existed at the time."
Baloney. It takes two to decide what the rules of war are. It's not like the British, or anyone else at that time, published a set of rules concerning warfare, or had a treaty with the colonists, or even recognized the colonists as having any rights at all. The British Empire didn't get where it did by obeying rules of warfare. What they did to the Irish, Scots, Indians, Africans, etc, would make your blood curl.
Calling Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc terrorists is something I would expect a 4th grade history teacher to do or maybe just a 4th grader.
I'm sure it wouldn't take long to make a list of problems that need solutions:
Social Security (Baby boomers retiring) Health Care (1/4 of teen girls with STDs, Baby boomeers retiring) Prison Overcrowding (1 out of 100 Americans?!?) Corporate Tax Loopholes (I pay more then some multinational cause they have really good accountants) Infrastructure (Built before the baby boomers were born) etc...
It is the job of Congress to address these issues. Instead, the members of our Congress are more interested in advancing their own careers and getting reelected (which means tearing down the other side). It's hard to argue that America deserves better, cause we keep sending the same people back to Washington every year.
Both parties are going to end up running Senators for President. My question is 'If they have the solution to America's problems, why didn't they introduce their solutions in the Senate?'. If their solution requires them to be President to work, then I doubt that I will like the solution.
More likely they don't have the solution, just monumental egos.
Robert Anton Wilson had it right. We're in the 5th phase of government, Bureaucracry, which lasts until we run out of paper (and they have a committee to fix that).
So maybe Apple should let the other browsers and java play nice on their gadgets.
That is funny, but the parent is correct that Apple could very well be declared a monopoly on the music downloads and devices market (both of which they own). Microsoft is a monopoly on the x86 desktop market, so don't think it can't happen.
It still boggles my mind that Microsoft could be declared a monopoly on a chipset that Intel dominates and yet Intel was spared the monopoly label. Sure, AMD has come a long way, but Intel is still over 70% of the x86 market.
Personally, I'd rather just see the other manufacturers compete, as an anti-trust ruling would just mean places like Europe could start demanding protection money, er, fines. Greedy 'peans.
It was the waves of barbarians against the christians that resulted in the darkages, so I'm not sure how you can blame the dark ages on the christians.
I've observed that slashdot Atheist are much more opposed to Christianity then any of the other religions. Even when there is a story about a different religion, the discussion almost always ends up attacking and/or ridiculing Christians.
The slashdot Atheists seem to share a common belief that the world would be much more advanced with out Christianity, which is arguably wrong.
Science vs religion is silly. This is the first item on your linked page...
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day --- from the link you posted But the universe was still really hot, so hot that ordinary atoms couldn't even exist. Electrons caused very small packets of light called photons to scatter continuously, and if you can believe it, light was actually linked, or coupled, to the particles, causing the whole universe to glow. This is the stage that scientists like to call the primordial soup because the universe looked like a plasma "soup" of protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, etc ---http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html Science tells us that everything in the universe, you, me, the chair, the earth, the moon, the sun, all the stars and all the galaxies were once homogenous and compressed into an area the size of a pin head. Religion tells us that God is everywhere in you, me, the chair, the earth, the moon, the sun, all the stars and all the galaxies. I don't see the inherent conflict.
I think we are getting closer to the truth.
You and yours want to define taking a movie (from Hollywood?) as not stealing. It's kind of hard to argue against that position without saying the word 'steal'. I'm fine with using the word take or share.
How do you feel about someone taking your videos and sharing them? Is that okay in your new and improved system? If not, then where do you draw the line? Is it only okay to share derivative crap? If so, then why would we want that?
Some people are using p2p to share their works and many of them are doing well. I'm not arguing against that. There are also lots of other movements stirring on the web that seek to bypass Hollywood. If you want to support those efforts, no one is stopping you.
I never said it was the Governments job to prop up a 'broken' business model nor do I agree that the business model is broken. If it is so broken, why is it that you are so intent on taking things from it? Sounds more than a little bit hypocritical.
"Even more people than previously might be able to enjoy the movie if only the monopoly right didn't exist."
Your system will not result in more people enjoying the movie because you intentionally leave out the cost of making the original. Your system benefits only a few and would result in depriving everyone of movies in the future because they would no longer be made.
Are there any limits in your system? Is it just big studio films or anything that is in a digital format? Where exactly is the line or is there none? Is it just the cost of reproduction that determines what is 'free'?
I think these are valid questions to ask before throwing out a 'broken' business model that has 80+ years of giving people things they enjoy and from which you want to keep stealing. I don't side with the RIAA and deplore their tactics, but I won't be on your side until you and yours can show me and mine that you can produce something worth stealing.
Don't forget to carry the kangaroo
"It's arguably doing damage to the community for the movie to not be freely available."
How exactly is the community being damaged? Which community are we talking about? Certainly were not talking about the 'community' that created the movie.
"The cost of the movie is likely too high for many people who might otherwise enjoy it."
Then those people should wait until it comes out on cable, or go rent the dvd, or wait until it is shown on TV. Why not cut out the middle man and advocate mugging people at the theatre and taking their tickets? I'm sure there are people who would enjoy having sex with your Mom, wife, whatever, but the cost is just too high. Maybe you should discuss your new ideas with them.
"The existence of electronic distribution means this balance needs to be re-thought."
Why would you think so? The existence of key duplicating machines doesn't mean we should throw open our doors.
"The ability to make a copy so cheaply means that the amount of damage to society being done by the granted monopoly right is correspondingly greater. Even more people than previously might be able to enjoy the movie if only the monopoly right didn't exist."
Well why wait until the movie is finished? Why not demand that dailies are posted on the web? I'm sure people would enjoy them.
All of your ideas sound great, but you conveniently forget the cost of the first copy. When someone goes to a theatre and buys a ticket, they are paying for the cost of making the original. Yes, they are watching a copy, which cost only a few dollars to make, but they are paying for the original work, as well as the marketing, distribution and the minimum wage earned by the people at their theatres.
If communism worked, I'd be a communist too.
No, they'll agree with you, but only if it is in defense of their property. The same people who wouldn't think twice about downloading a movie or cd are the same people who think Tivoization is theft.
If we wait until we have fusion (big if), we won't have to send so many supplies. Just send the fusion plant beforehand and it could generate air and water while the volunteer is on the way.
Still, I hate the time and energy so many spend on going to Mars. It's a dead end. It's just a big, cold, desert at the bottom of a gravity well. Landing a man on the Moon was a giant leap, landing one on Mars is a giant waste.
Maybe I've just read too many Sam Gunn stories.
Look it up for yourself, but Eli had a working assembly line and replaceable parts, both innovations ahead of their time. He was a genius and yet all we remember (are taught) is that he invented the cotton gin.
Before Eli Whitney, firearms were custom built by hand.
This is the 'new' science. First you have a theory, then you promote your theory, then someone takes a poll and then it becomes fact.
Computer simulations are acceptable proof in the 'new' science. Even flawed computer simulations are acceptable proof as they prove that the simulations are getting better.
I'm sure if you've spent one night in the woods it's pretty much the same as spending 2 years in the woods.
Or do you think HDT would disagree?
Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.
- quote at the bottom of the page when I posted the above.
Let's start by putting some detectors out in space that ping us every second. When the burst hits the sensors out there in space and destroys them we'll know here on Earth because the pings will stop. Put them out about a light year away and we'll have a whole year to prepare.
See, problem solved.
As a solution to the patent problem, it presupposes that companies will not use 'patent accounting' for their own purposes.
I think every patent should be reduced to it's simplest terms in one sentence:
'This patent covers taking a physical item and converting it to a digital proxy format and exchanging information about the status of the proxy item between multiple systems, where the physical item is a check.' - recently discussed here.
'This patent covers taking a physical item and seperating the item into its constituent parts, where the physical item is raw cotton.' - American genius Eli Whitney.
Then they can hire some patent examiners to walk the patent lists and convert every patent into simple language. Then everyone can more easily compare new applications with old patents. This would also make prior art easier to bring up in cases where the only change is the physical item.
I don't see MS using patents as a weapon, only for FUD and defense. I know that's kind of like saying the dragon only uses his teeth when close, but it's still true.
Personally, I'm not that worried about patents. Being sued usually presupposes a certain level of affluence and comes with the territory. As a citizen of the USA, I'm am worried. The patent for 'Scanning a check and exchanging information about the scanned check' is going to cost everyone money and make a few people rich. It about makes me sick.
The problem is how do you measure the income from an individual patent? Some products are covered by a wide range of patents, not always owned by the producer of the product. A cell phone, for example, will have multiple patents on not only the hardware, but also the software. That's just a cell phone. Try figuring out how to measure the income for each patent that is covered by a car or a chip fab.
It sounds like a job program for accountants.
Quickest way to get modded down is to present an opposing point of view.
Science is like an All-Star Game. The longer you've been top dog, the more likely you'll keep going to the show. Even after your skills decline and your only good for half the game and there's some rookie having a good year. If you try to bring up the rookie in a conversation, you'll get lots of blank looks and indignation to dare compare that new guy to the seasoned pro.
You want your theory to get respect, it either has to keep putting up the numbers year after year or be a Lebron and crush the competition from day one.
I don't think MS is trying to make Windows a better FOSS platform. Their stated goal is fluff. Does anyone really believe there is a demand for FOSS apps on Vista? Let me put on my tin foil hat.
I think it is much more likely that undermining GNU (linux) is the real goal. GNU seems like it is in an unassailable position being free and open, but there will be companies whose business model or ethics preclude using GNU (GPL) and they will jump at a proprietary (pirated) alternative. Additionally, UNG could weaken some claims of GPL violation that are based on using GNU tools and libraries, if UNG provides an alternative (big IF). A fully functioning UNG would make GPL updates more difficult, which I didn't think was possible.
I always thought Novel would be the ones to try to develop a UNG. Maybe MS got tired of waiting or maybe Novel is more useful as an 'early adopter'.
Or maybe this is just a fake. MS sure has announced a lot of stuff for 2009.
Never said that science is just opinion. Science is not about consensus and unanimity. Having more scientists saying something wrong is correct doesn't make it correct. We don't have to go back very far to prove this.
The laws of physics puts constraints on the idea, sure, but it doesn't invalidate the idea. And I don't really care if the design goal of 4 hours of 40 watt lighting is unachievable, it's the novelty of the idea I like.
Instead of trying to come up with a list of flaws, why not put your brain to use trying to come up with improvements? If the thing can be made to generate electricity for any amount of time it could be useful for a whole range of applications.