My "How I Would Run the Thing If I Had the Power" doesn't differ much from yours. Government's role should be one of a facilitator and rule-setter. Tax funds should definitely not be used to run the thing.
I'm not quite so dogmatic about use of tax funds for infrastructure investments or using possible earnings to other purposes. Both of these combat the problem of "no direct connection between its [governments] fees (taxes) and its expenditures". I agree this sort of lack of accountability and traceability is a real problem in the public field. But so is lack of flexibility and your hard rules would make this even worse. I believe that the cure for both is more transparency and active oversight by the community. Transparency can actually be achieved with rules, but oversight depends on citizens participating, so that part might not work. If that were the case, your dogma would probably be the best solution.
An investment to new infrastructure has always external benefits for the whole community. This easiest to see in the case where the fiber network brings in new business, that pay taxes and buy products and services from other local businesses, which may not use the fiber themselves. This benefit is often overemphasized, for sure, but it does exist. Another factor that may support using tax funds is purely financial; it may be possible to build a better all round financial plan with by using capital already in the bank. Using tax funds to build the infrastructure is not a question of dogma, but a question of case-by-case assessment.
I agree that public sector should attempt to run infrastructure at cost, with following two qualifiers: 1) at cost for the lifetime and 2) its better to err to the side of having money than not having money. In practice, during normal operation the fiber operator should attempt to build a safety net with its profits, so that it can use its own money when the times are bad. Furthermore, the money in the bank should not be left just there to sit, but it should be invested in a way that is beneficial to its balance and the community in whole. This may take any form that is practical.
I realize that I'm way too late for most people to ever see my comments, but I believe I have perspective that at least underrepresented, if not totally missing from this discussion.
Internet is very important for me. It is my main communication medium, both privately and professionally. My competence and experience is directly tied into it. Internet, or rather my access to it, is a capital resource, the only one that I have. Even beyond that, Internet has a central role in my vision of the future that I want to work for.
I recognize following governments and inter-governmental organizations as having justified power over me: The Republic of Finland The European Union The United Nations Please notice that the United States of America in fact is not on that list. Consequently, I do not expect the government of United States to hold my best interest in particularly high regard. I don't deny that many US policies have substantially benefited me, the creation of Internet being a prime example, but I do content that for most part such benefit has been incidental. In fact, with the EU and US increasingly competing in the global market, I expect to be royally screwed over by the US and that nobody in the US will care.
The US is the unquestioned military superpower of the world, and plans to remain so. However, maintenance of military supremacy is dependant on economic supremacy and here US only is a reigning but vulnerable champ. Economically, the EU is in the same league already, and has some structural advantages that may allow EU to pass the US. Because of their enormous populations, China and India both pose a serious threat to US supremacy in the long term. To me it seems pretty clear that in the long term US will not be able to sustain its military might compared to the rest of the world without using its strategic resources to hinder its economic rivals. I am not suggesting that US will use military force, simply because to make my case I do not need to do so. The US has other strategic resources. Main is of course the Middle Eastern oil, which US does not itself use (preferring more stabile sources), but does control to sufficient decree to affect its availability and price. There are others, control of Internet being one of them. I won't even suggest that the US will do anything really underhanded with these resources, again because to make my case I don't need to do so. So the US will not block the EU from the Internet, or nor will the US force Middle Eastern countries to stop selling oil to China. The US will use the strategic resources to shape the global economic playing field to favor itself. That is not even very controversial claim; in fact it is pretty much what you would expect a powerful government to do. Somewhat more controversially, I will predict that in realizing this goal the US will be ruthless and vindictive to those that oppose it, it will not care about the human suffering, injustice or ecological harm it will cause, and certainly it will not give any thought how its policies will affect my life. Nor will these policies actually serve the average US citizens' interests of economic prosperity or the ideals of democracy, freedom, justice or truth. When I said "playing field to favor itself" I meant that the goal of US government is to remain the sole military superpower; the production of munitions, not consumer goods. Worldwide freedom and justice, even political but especially economic (i.e. global free-market) would eventually lead to diminishing of the US share of world economy, which would mean that the US could not anymore outspend the rest of the world in military budget and the US would lose its status of a sole military superpower.
One thing I would like to make perfectly clear, when above I say "the US" I really do mean that, not just the current administration. I do not see great deal of difference between Democrats and Republicans, in terms of policies that affect on me. Since the WWII both have been really bad, and I really could not choose betw
Firstly, you are using the metaphor incorrectly. Your examples are about allocation of resources to ensure operation, which isn't the Tragedy of Commons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commo ns) Secondly, Internet is subject to the exact problem of source allocation that your examples illustrate. To ensure operation, the namespace has to be regulated, just like radio spectrum and satellite slots. Thirdly, Internet is most definitely subject to Tragedy of Commons, with the most common example being spam.
Some writers here have pointed out that 1) Government is only doing this because they want/have to be seen doing something, and are taking this expensive, invasive and technically complex measure to only to make people think they are safe. Others have said that 2) Many more people die of natural causes, accidents etc. in London every day than were killed in the terrorist attack. The danger of you yourself being bodily affected by a terrorist attack is low.
For most part I do agree, but this leads to me to a conclusion that not many seem to have come. First though, I have to make one more statement (of fact). 3) The fear is real. Fear exist: regardless of what the statistical probability of becoming a casualty in terrorist attack is very low, people do fear it more than many other things they probably should fear. (I will get back to this.) Fear has an effect: it saps joy, causes stress, makes people (including the politicians) forget the really important matters, it gives power to the worst people.
My conclusion would then be that any government action should try lessen the fear, which is high enough to be harmful to individuals and society. The bodily danger from terrorist attacks is already low enough to be a secondary concern. Note that this is a bit more general statement than I would really want to make and has at its center an assumption of the people as stupid masses that need to controlled, which may nor may not be true but is a position that I refuse to take. Statement I would like to make is: promoting perceived security is addressing the actual effects of terrorism.
A bit more about how people react to terrorism. Some of us, and I often fall into this category, are quick to point to statistics like you are more like to be killed by X and argue that people should not feel afraid. I don't think anyone quoting statistics expects it to convince many people not to fear, we are just pointing out the fallacy. In my opinion at the root of such behaviour is an inability to relate to people. It takes a certain hardness of character to look at a terrorist attack and note that economic effects are limited and statistically one if very unlikely to be killed or seriously injured in such an attack. This hardness of character is not courage, it is rationality but it is also detachment. A normally empathic person feels part of the horror and pain the people subject to the attack. This may cause them to feel fear, anger and sadness. They may be the cause of some stupid reactions, but there is no lack of logic in those feelings.
I think you are wrong. Actually, I really can't fathom how your post gets +3, Informative.
This proposal would lower the cost of entry to the pan-European market for all copyright holders. In general low cost of entry is good for the consumers and the smaller producers. There really are artists that own their own copyrights. You may not have ever heard of them, because right now it is really, really hard to break into the music market without Big Media backing. This proposal would make that slightly easier, which can't be a bad thing.
Many commenters have expressed concerns that the Big Media would try to use this to expand their control on copyrighted works. This concern is valid, and we (the European public) have to be vigilant again. The whole software patent thing has raised awareness of lawmakers, news media and the general public on the Intellectual Property matters. Similar principled arguments about the rights of the public and independent producers can and must be used to fight Big Media *if* it tries something nasty.
No no, the fight is a long way from over in the EU.
Yes, this was a major victory: a bad (proposed) law was struck down. Now there is no clear law governing software patents, but there are software patents in the EU. European Patent Office, mostly on its own authority, issues patents on software and member states may adopt any patent regime they choose.
A US analogy for the events of today would be the US Federal government refusing to clearly ban or allow something, but rather preferring states to decide for themselves. States of Washington and California probably would allow software patens in a heartbeat and some other states probably would not. Probably not an ideal situation. And of course, feds would not demur on this matter and rightly so, as patents clearly affect interstate commerce.
I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.
Me too! Naturally, I too am from a country (Finland) with national ID system that works alright.
There seem to be these national/cultural paranoia - or things that other people find peculiar - all around. For example, Scandinavians value transparency in decision making processes much more that other Europeans seem to do. To us it is inconceivable that other intelligent, democratic peopled could disagree about this, while the others, especially those from southern Europe, can't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know if the Anglo-Saxons would disagree but I prefer transparency to anonymity as a safeguard against fascism.... Even if that anonymity was real, and not just "security through obscurity
(Having said all that, the UK ID plan does go pretty far...)
A church is much a product of the society it lives in. Scandinavian societies could be considered post-cristian and the main churches here reflect that. The lutherian churches have more or less found their niches in promoting values like tolerance, pacifisim, community and compassion than any dogma. I would say that for most part they are trying to out of theology business altogether.
As a consumer: I am willing to rent DRMed content, be it a monthly subscription, pay per view or time-limited. I want the service to make economic sense to me, which in practice requires a working market on such services.
Besides a consumer, I also like to consider myself a creator. At least I have knowledge and experience that I wish to cash in on at some point. I don't see myself having much qualms enforcing contracts or licenses with DRM.
Granted that my single man operation won't have quite the social impact of the multi-national media empires of today and tomorrow, but there you have it.
- Almost no luck at all involved, yes this is important
What are you taking about? Advanced Civilization is one of the most luck-based games there are. Ok, I'll give you that a competent AdvCiv-player will beat a newbie or a bad player and true, the basic conflict resolution doesn't involve a random factor(*), but that's almost meaningless when compared to the economic system, especially the "special event" systems inbedded in the economic system. Draw a a serious non-trade calamity and then talk about the game not involving any luck.
--Flam
(*) And a consistently present random factor does not make a game luck-based.
This study addresses exactly that criticism of yours, and it blows it away.
Hardly. Tweaked models are still tweaked models. They are still designed to show certain effects, no matter what data they get fed.
True, if by "tweaking" you mean "work on it to get it right" and by "certain effect" you mean "correspondence with reality". You are aptly named named, aren't you Mr Obfuscant.
In this study the predictions of these models were compared to real-world weather data (the 40 years or ocean temperature measurement). The two "greenhouse warming" models had made predictions that matched the measured data, others didn't.
From the article we don't get to know much else, certainly we can't evaluate if the study was good or bad science (in metodology, not in ethos or pathos). There's no way of knowing if "albedo of clouds" was competently calculated into the models. To bring up those questions is mostly just obfucacting the issue, cloud cover if you will.
As to your capper, humans are definatelly able to cause planet-wide effects. To prove that point we could simply detonate every nuclear bomb in our collective possession and observe the drasticly changed weather patterns for a few years and the near total extinction of animal life. On less arupt side we have the theory of greenhouse effect that shows a mechanisim how we may be effecting planet-wide weather patterns. Trees have been falling down on their own for millions of years before humans came along, that doesn't mean humans aren't responsible most tree falling down today.
Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated. Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
That's pretty much the whole idea behind patents: protect the original innovator. Could you give an example of this working in the real world? A single patent of software that you consider valid and granted to a small to medium developer?
I'm not saying that there aren't any, I just don't know any, and I do know couple of cases of established developer using a patent to harass a competitor.
Heck, I'll settle for an example of a valid software patent.
I'm going to buy one or more books on MySQL and related subjects (the LAMP-stack). I usually go with the newest O'Reilly book on the subject (any subject), but the reviewed book seems interesting. 10/10 from a Slashdot review and no serious arguments from the masses, that is pretty good recommentation.
My questions are:
If you have read/used this book, is it really that good? If you have not read/used this book, what book have you read/used and found satisfactory as a desktop reference book.
I have not actually played the games, nor did I know the character's name, although I have seen Metroid Prime played several times. I had not consciously thought about the character's gender, but I was surprised to learn that Samus is female. I am not surprised that it's not a robot though.
Oh well, I guess being altogether free of stereotypes is too much to hope, just gonna have to get by with recognizing and dealing with them.
--Flam
PS. I consider myself pretty enlightened for a priviledged while male, as a prove of that I offer that I regulary get labeled both chauvinist and feminist, once even in a single conversation.
I actually haven't seen a decent rebutal for it yet, and I'm looking for one - mainly to calm my nerves.
I don't know if the following will be much of a rebuttal, but it might calm your nerves a bit.
To the key to understanding the article is this paragraph: The human spirit is capable of some miraculous things. We need a miracle right now, so the human spirit had better get its' ass in gear, pronto.
The author is trying to shake us up into action. That doesn't mean that the science behind his polemic is necessarily incorrect, but it does mean that scientific correctness isn't his priority.
On the whole I do agree with much of what he says. Concept of Peak Oil is credible, that's how finite resources and geometrical growth work. The world economy is based on oil and oil shortage in inevitable.
What I don't agree is the decree to which we can cope with the depletion. The author calls alternative energy sources a hoax. According to him, for various reason, alternative energy sources aren't practical replacements for oil. I don't find his arguments convincing.
I won't suggests that there is a single solution, like going all-out nuclear, but I will suggest that there doesn't need to be a single solution. Rather there will a whole host of solutions, competing but at the same time complementary.
The author suggests that oil is necessary predicate for all the other energy sources. This is not true. Oil just is the cheapest energy source currently, so it is used in all manufacturing extensively. There is nothing to prevent us using, for example, electrical energy from a nuclear reactor to build solar panels or to operate a thermal depolymerization facility to "recycle" oil for the uses that oil is essential for.
The author does not factor in increased efficiency in, well, just about everything. We can do more with less and the evolution will not stop.
Also written off is voluntary conservation of energy by, for example, speeding limits that are build into cars.
I think the author underestimates our ability (as a species) to adept. I don't buy the part that oil depletion will devastate our economy and cripple our ability to implement renewables (that is build the infrastructure for harvesting and distributing the energy for alternative/renewable source). Have you ever considered how much dead weight there is in our economy? How much untapped economical potential there is even in the most advanced western societies? What is the portion of workforce that are involved in fields essential for survival (agriculture, energy supply, industry and manufacture (including distribution))? I'm not saying that our society will not change, but I'm confident that in a pinch we will be able to tighten our collective belts. A new Great Depression maybe, massive die-off very unlikely.
The US has a long history using it's combined power of trade, diplomacy and intelligence/espionage to further it's goals and the goals of it's private corporation.
(Disclaimer: links below are from various Google searches and are there to give context. They do not necessarily express my views, or even agree with me.)
Echeleon was used in corporate espionage to benefit private US corporation, to the detriment of corporations from US allies.
The US complained to the WTO about the EU policy of banning genetically modified foods. The issue is not yet fully resolved, but looks like the EU must eventually let GM-foods in. US companies are very strong in GM-foods and gene technology in general.
The US (and the EU, Japan and others) oppose a developing nation's right the apply protectionistic economic policies. That's, IMHO, what's really behind the Cancun failure and the Singapore issues (PDF). It's also two-faced, disgusting and imperialistic as about anything in the world today.
The US is using strongarm tactics in exporting it's brand of copyright laws.
The US has by no means limited it's interference to humans rights or other laudable goals. To suggest so it at best naive, but maybe "willfully ignorant to the point of being harmful to the world around" would be closer.
The person I was talking to was talking about the general case of whether Lindows is an okay trademark, so I responded in a general sense.
And now I feel really stupid. I apologize.
I was browsing at "+3" so didn't see the message you were replying to. I know I really really should have checked the whole thread. Again, I apologize.
You may stop reading here if you like.
-------------
I do stand by what I said in general. Of course I was totally in error to put it as a reply to your message. Other messages did discuss the topic in the way I lambasted you for. I did consider starting a new thread but decided against it because I wanted to quote that one line. Oh well.
Basic skills in English are common in Finland, and to my knowledge even more so in Sweden. In general English language is very widely spoken as the first foreign language around the world. At some point English will likely become so pervasive that it should be treated differently from other languages - the true global language, but we are not there yet.
Of course, there is nothing objectionable about considering widely used words from any language as common. That's just common sense. In this case I don't think "Windows" would be such a word. Almost everybody in Finland would associate that word with Microsoft's OS, and only that. Pretty much a trademark by default.
"Help", "money" and "computer" might be nominally English words that should be considered common words in Finland. That is because they have crossed into Finnish: "helppaa", "mani", "kompuutteri". There are probably other examples. Point isn't that so many Finns know the English words, but that they have become/are becoming part of the Finnish language.
Not that this anywhere near the point I was trying to make. But let's not go back there.
--Flam,
so shooting your own leg might be a bit like this, interesting
I don't know much about this new one, but I've seen the previous 5 episodes.
Are Star Wrecks funny? Yes, but probably only to a Finnish speaker in the right state of mind. (Techically that could be considered a no, too.)
Acting is bad. The humor is deadpan. Jokes are really, really language-dependant. The archtypical Star Wreck joke a standard scifi movie line wierdly translated into Finnish. That might not sound great fun, but it is, honest. Much of it is just that we Finns aren't used to hearing Finnish spoken in scifi context (movies in Finland are subbed, not dubbed). One thing is sure, that kind of a joke is impossible to translate. Those jokes could grow tiresome in a full lenght movie. Some longevity is gained from the sort of Wheadonesque Captain Pirk dialogue.
Did I mention that the acting is bad? That's fun too, at least I think so. I'm actually a little worried that the new prettier people might also know how to act.
Also apparent is the fact that there are no black people in Finland or something, because all the black characters are just white people painted black...poorly.
Well, there aren't many. I don't know the statistics but I would hazard a guess of 1 in 500 and many of them are recent refugees. I would think that it would be unlikely for a random group of sci-fi fans to include a black person.
Painting people black badly in movies is... hmm... traditional, so it might be a kind of in-joke too. In 40s and 50s this was done in many real Finnish movies, for the simple reason of there really being no black people in Finland. It does look pretty silly and the movies are so dated that it all becomes great campy fun.
(Although this message is a reply I'm not really ranting about the parent specifically but rather about numerous comments in this story. I do address "mcc" directly, but my intent is not ad hominem. Oh, and I'm Finnish.)
Okay, this is starting to bug me. A lot of people seem to have a real difficulty grasping the fact that Finland and Sweden are sovereign nations, quite separate from the USA, and that English is not an official language in either country. Furthermore they are getting moderated up. (Luckily, they are also being corrected in replies.)
My American friends, have you ever wondered why you have a reputation on being ignorant? Well, in short, because sometimes many of you really are.
I don't want to make this into anything larger than it is. The matter in hand is not that important. Not all Americans are ignorant, and everybody is ignorant sometimes. Still, here we do have a real-life, caught-in-the-wild example of the Ignorant American. That can be useful.
Now, of course, I don't know what finnish and swedish law are. But I don't see any good justification for them being different.
Indeed. I do wonder if you can see any good justification how the above could piss me off.
Come on guys and gals, this isn't that difficult stuff here. A jurisdiction has a finite set of official languages. Common words of those languages are not trademarkable in that jurisdiction. Common words of other languages, in general, are trademarkable. If that isn't obvious to you right away then, in my opinion, your point of view is limited in a way that does not take into consideration the large majority of the world (i.e. you are ignorant).
Furthermore and a bit more abstractly, despite its pretty much universal acceptance as a Good Thing, trademark is just a legal artifact. A social contract made to benefit the society and codified in the society's legal system. I find it hard to believe that same exact application of the principle would be the optimal for all societies. This should be apparent to any engineer-type at least. Sovereign nations/jurisdictions/societies not only have the right but also the duty to apply the principle in a manner correct to their particular circumstances. It should not be a great wonder if Finland and Sweden have different trademark laws than the US; our parliaments might have been doing their jobs. That's just a small wonder. (It's inconsequential that Finland and Sweden, as members of the EU, aren't really sovereign in traditional sense.)
Huh, I feel better now... being pedantic does that for me. I will now proceed to presumptuous. (And I kid you not.)
If you feel that you are an Ignorant American and you wish to work on not be one, you might consider re-reading the comments to this story but this time try to assume the perspective of a Finn or a Swede.(*) You're not doing it right if you can get to the bottom without getting angry. It's that bad.
And finally, this won't affect the legal situation between Microsoft and Lindows in the USA. At worst Lindows might have to change name of its overseas operations. Many companies and products are forced to do so.
--Flam,
who got a "troll" for this, and wonders what he'll get now
(*) How to do that. Finns are a lot like Canadians, not quite as good in ice hockey and with even more massive inferiority complex about our neighbors. Swedes are gay.
I should think you could. I'm not a lawyer and a Finn, not a bloody Swede, so just a laymans opinion here.
Could I name my new product "Aurinko" and get a US trademark for it?
The English language is often used by Finnish companies just because this. I know this from a personal experience: I was able to use common English words for the name of my start-up a couple of years ago. A fairly good name, better than anything that was available in Finnish... not that made any difference in the end.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
My "How I Would Run the Thing If I Had the Power" doesn't differ much from yours. Government's role should be one of a facilitator and rule-setter. Tax funds should definitely not be used to run the thing.
I'm not quite so dogmatic about use of tax funds for infrastructure investments or using possible earnings to other purposes. Both of these combat the problem of "no direct connection between its [governments] fees (taxes) and its expenditures". I agree this sort of lack of accountability and traceability is a real problem in the public field. But so is lack of flexibility and your hard rules would make this even worse. I believe that the cure for both is more transparency and active oversight by the community. Transparency can actually be achieved with rules, but oversight depends on citizens participating, so that part might not work. If that were the case, your dogma would probably be the best solution.
An investment to new infrastructure has always external benefits for the whole community. This easiest to see in the case where the fiber network brings in new business, that pay taxes and buy products and services from other local businesses, which may not use the fiber themselves. This benefit is often overemphasized, for sure, but it does exist. Another factor that may support using tax funds is purely financial; it may be possible to build a better all round financial plan with by using capital already in the bank. Using tax funds to build the infrastructure is not a question of dogma, but a question of case-by-case assessment.
I agree that public sector should attempt to run infrastructure at cost, with following two qualifiers: 1) at cost for the lifetime and 2) its better to err to the side of having money than not having money. In practice, during normal operation the fiber operator should attempt to build a safety net with its profits, so that it can use its own money when the times are bad. Furthermore, the money in the bank should not be left just there to sit, but it should be invested in a way that is beneficial to its balance and the community in whole. This may take any form that is practical.
I realize that I'm way too late for most people to ever see my comments, but I believe I have perspective that at least underrepresented, if not totally missing from this discussion.
Internet is very important for me. It is my main communication medium, both privately and professionally. My competence and experience is directly tied into it. Internet, or rather my access to it, is a capital resource, the only one that I have. Even beyond that, Internet has a central role in my vision of the future that I want to work for.
I recognize following governments and inter-governmental organizations as having justified power over me:
The Republic of Finland
The European Union
The United Nations
Please notice that the United States of America in fact is not on that list. Consequently, I do not expect the government of United States to hold my best interest in particularly high regard. I don't deny that many US policies have substantially benefited me, the creation of Internet being a prime example, but I do content that for most part such benefit has been incidental. In fact, with the EU and US increasingly competing in the global market, I expect to be royally screwed over by the US and that nobody in the US will care.
The US is the unquestioned military superpower of the world, and plans to remain so. However, maintenance of military supremacy is dependant on economic supremacy and here US only is a reigning but vulnerable champ. Economically, the EU is in the same league already, and has some structural advantages that may allow EU to pass the US. Because of their enormous populations, China and India both pose a serious threat to US supremacy in the long term. To me it seems pretty clear that in the long term US will not be able to sustain its military might compared to the rest of the world without using its strategic resources to hinder its economic rivals. I am not suggesting that US will use military force, simply because to make my case I do not need to do so. The US has other strategic resources. Main is of course the Middle Eastern oil, which US does not itself use (preferring more stabile sources), but does control to sufficient decree to affect its availability and price. There are others, control of Internet being one of them. I won't even suggest that the US will do anything really underhanded with these resources, again because to make my case I don't need to do so. So the US will not block the EU from the Internet, or nor will the US force Middle Eastern countries to stop selling oil to China. The US will use the strategic resources to shape the global economic playing field to favor itself. That is not even very controversial claim; in fact it is pretty much what you would expect a powerful government to do. Somewhat more controversially, I will predict that in realizing this goal the US will be ruthless and vindictive to those that oppose it, it will not care about the human suffering, injustice or ecological harm it will cause, and certainly it will not give any thought how its policies will affect my life. Nor will these policies actually serve the average US citizens' interests of economic prosperity or the ideals of democracy, freedom, justice or truth. When I said "playing field to favor itself" I meant that the goal of US government is to remain the sole military superpower; the production of munitions, not consumer goods. Worldwide freedom and justice, even political but especially economic (i.e. global free-market) would eventually lead to diminishing of the US share of world economy, which would mean that the US could not anymore outspend the rest of the world in military budget and the US would lose its status of a sole military superpower.
One thing I would like to make perfectly clear, when above I say "the US" I really do mean that, not just the current administration. I do not see great deal of difference between Democrats and Republicans, in terms of policies that affect on me. Since the WWII both have been really bad, and I really could not choose betw
Sorry, but that is patently wrong.
o ns) Secondly, Internet is subject to the exact problem of source allocation that your examples illustrate. To ensure operation, the namespace has to be regulated, just like radio spectrum and satellite slots. Thirdly, Internet is most definitely subject to Tragedy of Commons, with the most common example being spam.
Firstly, you are using the metaphor incorrectly. Your examples are about allocation of resources to ensure operation, which isn't the Tragedy of Commons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_comm
Some writers here have pointed out that
1) Government is only doing this because they want/have to be seen doing something, and are taking this expensive, invasive and technically complex measure to only to make people think they are safe.
Others have said that
2) Many more people die of natural causes, accidents etc. in London every day than were killed in the terrorist attack. The danger of you yourself being bodily affected by a terrorist attack is low.
For most part I do agree, but this leads to me to a conclusion that not many seem to have come. First though, I have to make one more statement (of fact).
3) The fear is real. Fear exist: regardless of what the statistical probability of becoming a casualty in terrorist attack is very low, people do fear it more than many other things they probably should fear. (I will get back to this.) Fear has an effect: it saps joy, causes stress, makes people (including the politicians) forget the really important matters, it gives power to the worst people.
My conclusion would then be that any government action should try lessen the fear, which is high enough to be harmful to individuals and society. The bodily danger from terrorist attacks is already low enough to be a secondary concern. Note that this is a bit more general statement than I would really want to make and has at its center an assumption of the people as stupid masses that need to controlled, which may nor may not be true but is a position that I refuse to take. Statement I would like to make is: promoting perceived security is addressing the actual effects of terrorism.
A bit more about how people react to terrorism. Some of us, and I often fall into this category, are quick to point to statistics like you are more like to be killed by X and argue that people should not feel afraid. I don't think anyone quoting statistics expects it to convince many people not to fear, we are just pointing out the fallacy. In my opinion at the root of such behaviour is an inability to relate to people. It takes a certain hardness of character to look at a terrorist attack and note that economic effects are limited and statistically one if very unlikely to be killed or seriously injured in such an attack. This hardness of character is not courage, it is rationality but it is also detachment. A normally empathic person feels part of the horror and pain the people subject to the attack. This may cause them to feel fear, anger and sadness. They may be the cause of some stupid reactions, but there is no lack of logic in those feelings.
Yeah, very few details.
1 90-16&type=News
5 23746,00.html
Best I could find with a cursory search was from EurActiv (which looks like a pretty interesting site):
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-142
BBC sums it up pretty well:
"The proposal by the European Commission will now be discussed by member states and industry bodies.
EU officials hope agreement on a way to implement the idea can be reached by October."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4663731.stm
The Guardian:"EU plans online copyright licence":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1
I think you are wrong. Actually, I really can't fathom how your post gets +3, Informative.
This proposal would lower the cost of entry to the pan-European market for all copyright holders. In general low cost of entry is good for the consumers and the smaller producers. There really are artists that own their own copyrights. You may not have ever heard of them, because right now it is really, really hard to break into the music market without Big Media backing. This proposal would make that slightly easier, which can't be a bad thing.
Many commenters have expressed concerns that the Big Media would try to use this to expand their control on copyrighted works. This concern is valid, and we (the European public) have to be vigilant again. The whole software patent thing has raised awareness of lawmakers, news media and the general public on the Intellectual Property matters. Similar principled arguments about the rights of the public and independent producers can and must be used to fight Big Media *if* it tries something nasty.
No no, the fight is a long way from over in the EU.
Yes, this was a major victory: a bad (proposed) law was struck down. Now there is no clear law governing software patents, but there are software patents in the EU. European Patent Office, mostly on its own authority, issues patents on software and member states may adopt any patent regime they choose.
A US analogy for the events of today would be the US Federal government refusing to clearly ban or allow something, but rather preferring states to decide for themselves. States of Washington and California probably would allow software patens in a heartbeat and some other states probably would not. Probably not an ideal situation. And of course, feds would not demur on this matter and rightly so, as patents clearly affect interstate commerce.
Heh, he (the GP) used word the homo is context with the word Sweden, so naturally I thougth he was Finnish, but turns out he's from Philly. Go figure.
I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.
... Even if that anonymity was real, and not just "security through obscurity
...)
Me too! Naturally, I too am from a country (Finland) with national ID system that works alright.
There seem to be these national/cultural paranoia - or things that other people find peculiar - all around. For example, Scandinavians value transparency in decision making processes much more that other Europeans seem to do. To us it is inconceivable that other intelligent, democratic peopled could disagree about this, while the others, especially those from southern Europe, can't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know if the Anglo-Saxons would disagree but I prefer transparency to anonymity as a safeguard against fascism.
(Having said all that, the UK ID plan does go pretty far
To quote Mark Twain: "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them."
A church is much a product of the society it lives in. Scandinavian societies could be considered post-cristian and the main churches here reflect that. The lutherian churches have more or less found their niches in promoting values like tolerance, pacifisim, community and compassion than any dogma. I would say that for most part they are trying to out of theology business altogether.
As a consumer: I am willing to rent DRMed content, be it a monthly subscription, pay per view or time-limited. I want the service to make economic sense to me, which in practice requires a working market on such services.
Besides a consumer, I also like to consider myself a creator. At least I have knowledge and experience that I wish to cash in on at some point. I don't see myself having much qualms enforcing contracts or licenses with DRM.
Granted that my single man operation won't have quite the social impact of the multi-national media empires of today and tomorrow, but there you have it.
--Flam
- Almost no luck at all involved, yes this is important
What are you taking about? Advanced Civilization is one of the most luck-based games there are. Ok, I'll give you that a competent AdvCiv-player will beat a newbie or a bad player and true, the basic conflict resolution doesn't involve a random factor(*), but that's almost meaningless when compared to the economic system, especially the "special event" systems inbedded in the economic system. Draw a a serious non-trade calamity and then talk about the game not involving any luck.
--Flam
(*) And a consistently present random factor does not make a game luck-based.
True, if by "tweaking" you mean "work on it to get it right" and by "certain effect" you mean "correspondence with reality". You are aptly named named, aren't you Mr Obfuscant.
In this study the predictions of these models were compared to real-world weather data (the 40 years or ocean temperature measurement). The two "greenhouse warming" models had made predictions that matched the measured data, others didn't.
From the article we don't get to know much else, certainly we can't evaluate if the study was good or bad science (in metodology, not in ethos or pathos). There's no way of knowing if "albedo of clouds" was competently calculated into the models. To bring up those questions is mostly just obfucacting the issue, cloud cover if you will.
As to your capper, humans are definatelly able to cause planet-wide effects. To prove that point we could simply detonate every nuclear bomb in our collective possession and observe the drasticly changed weather patterns for a few years and the near total extinction of animal life. On less arupt side we have the theory of greenhouse effect that shows a mechanisim how we may be effecting planet-wide weather patterns. Trees have been falling down on their own for millions of years before humans came along, that doesn't mean humans aren't responsible most tree falling down today.
--Flam
Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated. Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
That's pretty much the whole idea behind patents: protect the original innovator. Could you give an example of this working in the real world? A single patent of software that you consider valid and granted to a small to medium developer?
I'm not saying that there aren't any, I just don't know any, and I do know couple of cases of established developer using a patent to harass a competitor.
Heck, I'll settle for an example of a valid software patent.
--Flam
I'm going to buy one or more books on MySQL and related subjects (the LAMP-stack). I usually go with the newest O'Reilly book on the subject (any subject), but the reviewed book seems interesting. 10/10 from a Slashdot review and no serious arguments from the masses, that is pretty good recommentation.
My questions are:
If you have read/used this book, is it really that good?
If you have not read/used this book, what book have you read/used and found satisfactory as a desktop reference book.
--Flam
I have not actually played the games, nor did I know the character's name, although I have seen Metroid Prime played several times. I had not consciously thought about the character's gender, but I was surprised to learn that Samus is female. I am not surprised that it's not a robot though.
Oh well, I guess being altogether free of stereotypes is too much to hope, just gonna have to get by with recognizing and dealing with them.
--Flam
PS. I consider myself pretty enlightened for a priviledged while male, as a prove of that I offer that I regulary get labeled both chauvinist and feminist, once even in a single conversation.
I actually haven't seen a decent rebutal for it yet, and I'm looking for one - mainly to calm my nerves.
I don't know if the following will be much of a rebuttal, but it might calm your nerves a bit.
To the key to understanding the article is this paragraph:
The human spirit is capable of some miraculous things. We need a miracle right now, so the human spirit had better get its' ass in gear, pronto.
The author is trying to shake us up into action. That doesn't mean that the science behind his polemic is necessarily incorrect, but it does mean that scientific correctness isn't his priority.
On the whole I do agree with much of what he says. Concept of Peak Oil is credible, that's how finite resources and geometrical growth work. The world economy is based on oil and oil shortage in inevitable.
What I don't agree is the decree to which we can cope with the depletion. The author calls alternative energy sources a hoax. According to him, for various reason, alternative energy sources aren't practical replacements for oil. I don't find his arguments convincing.
I won't suggests that there is a single solution, like going all-out nuclear, but I will suggest that there doesn't need to be a single solution. Rather there will a whole host of solutions, competing but at the same time complementary.
The author suggests that oil is necessary predicate for all the other energy sources. This is not true. Oil just is the cheapest energy source currently, so it is used in all manufacturing extensively. There is nothing to prevent us using, for example, electrical energy from a nuclear reactor to build solar panels or to operate a thermal depolymerization facility to "recycle" oil for the uses that oil is essential for.
The author does not factor in increased efficiency in, well, just about everything. We can do more with less and the evolution will not stop.
Also written off is voluntary conservation of energy by, for example, speeding limits that are build into cars.
I think the author underestimates our ability (as a species) to adept. I don't buy the part that oil depletion will devastate our economy and cripple our ability to implement renewables (that is build the infrastructure for harvesting and distributing the energy for alternative/renewable source). Have you ever considered how much dead weight there is in our economy? How much untapped economical potential there is even in the most advanced western societies? What is the portion of workforce that are involved in fields essential for survival (agriculture, energy supply, industry and manufacture (including distribution))? I'm not saying that our society will not change, but I'm confident that in a pinch we will be able to tighten our collective belts. A new Great Depression maybe, massive die-off very unlikely.
--Flam
The US has a long history using it's combined power of trade, diplomacy and intelligence/espionage to further it's goals and the goals of it's private corporation.
(Disclaimer: links below are from various Google searches and are there to give context. They do not necessarily express my views, or even agree with me.)
Echeleon was used in corporate espionage to benefit private US corporation, to the detriment of corporations from US allies.
The US complained to the WTO about the EU policy of banning genetically modified foods. The issue is not yet fully resolved, but looks like the EU must eventually let GM-foods in. US companies are very strong in GM-foods and gene technology in general.
The US (and the EU, Japan and others) oppose a developing nation's right the apply protectionistic economic policies. That's, IMHO, what's really behind the Cancun failure and the Singapore issues (PDF). It's also two-faced, disgusting and imperialistic as about anything in the world today.
The US is using strongarm tactics in exporting it's brand of copyright laws.
The US has by no means limited it's interference to humans rights or other laudable goals. To suggest so it at best naive, but maybe "willfully ignorant to the point of being harmful to the world around" would be closer.
--Flam
So why was it being done in american movies?
Uh, why was what done in where and what's the connection to Star Wreck?
And now I feel really stupid. I apologize.
I was browsing at "+3" so didn't see the message you were replying to. I know I really really should have checked the whole thread. Again, I apologize.
You may stop reading here if you like.
-------------
I do stand by what I said in general. Of course I was totally in error to put it as a reply to your message. Other messages did discuss the topic in the way I lambasted you for. I did consider starting a new thread but decided against it because I wanted to quote that one line. Oh well.
Basic skills in English are common in Finland, and to my knowledge even more so in Sweden. In general English language is very widely spoken as the first foreign language around the world. At some point English will likely become so pervasive that it should be treated differently from other languages - the true global language, but we are not there yet.
Of course, there is nothing objectionable about considering widely used words from any language as common. That's just common sense. In this case I don't think "Windows" would be such a word. Almost everybody in Finland would associate that word with Microsoft's OS, and only that. Pretty much a trademark by default.
"Help", "money" and "computer" might be nominally English words that should be considered common words in Finland. That is because they have crossed into Finnish: "helppaa", "mani", "kompuutteri". There are probably other examples. Point isn't that so many Finns know the English words, but that they have become/are becoming part of the Finnish language.
Not that this anywhere near the point I was trying to make. But let's not go back there.
--Flam,
so shooting your own leg might be a bit like this, interesting
I don't know much about this new one, but I've seen the previous 5 episodes.
Are Star Wrecks funny? Yes, but probably only to a Finnish speaker in the right state of mind. (Techically that could be considered a no, too.)
Acting is bad. The humor is deadpan. Jokes are really, really language-dependant. The archtypical Star Wreck joke a standard scifi movie line wierdly translated into Finnish. That might not sound great fun, but it is, honest. Much of it is just that we Finns aren't used to hearing Finnish spoken in scifi context (movies in Finland are subbed, not dubbed). One thing is sure, that kind of a joke is impossible to translate. Those jokes could grow tiresome in a full lenght movie. Some longevity is gained from the sort of Wheadonesque Captain Pirk dialogue.
Did I mention that the acting is bad? That's fun too, at least I think so. I'm actually a little worried that the new prettier people might also know how to act.
--Flam
Well, there aren't many. I don't know the statistics but I would hazard a guess of 1 in 500 and many of them are recent refugees. I would think that it would be unlikely for a random group of sci-fi fans to include a black person.
Painting people black badly in movies is
--Flam
Okay, this is starting to bug me. A lot of people seem to have a real difficulty grasping the fact that Finland and Sweden are sovereign nations, quite separate from the USA, and that English is not an official language in either country. Furthermore they are getting moderated up. (Luckily, they are also being corrected in replies.)
My American friends, have you ever wondered why you have a reputation on being ignorant? Well, in short, because sometimes many of you really are.
I don't want to make this into anything larger than it is. The matter in hand is not that important. Not all Americans are ignorant, and everybody is ignorant sometimes. Still, here we do have a real-life, caught-in-the-wild example of the Ignorant American. That can be useful.
Indeed. I do wonder if you can see any good justification how the above could piss me off.
Come on guys and gals, this isn't that difficult stuff here. A jurisdiction has a finite set of official languages. Common words of those languages are not trademarkable in that jurisdiction. Common words of other languages, in general, are trademarkable. If that isn't obvious to you right away then, in my opinion, your point of view is limited in a way that does not take into consideration the large majority of the world (i.e. you are ignorant).
Furthermore and a bit more abstractly, despite its pretty much universal acceptance as a Good Thing, trademark is just a legal artifact. A social contract made to benefit the society and codified in the society's legal system. I find it hard to believe that same exact application of the principle would be the optimal for all societies. This should be apparent to any engineer-type at least. Sovereign nations/jurisdictions/societies not only have the right but also the duty to apply the principle in a manner correct to their particular circumstances. It should not be a great wonder if Finland and Sweden have different trademark laws than the US; our parliaments might have been doing their jobs. That's just a small wonder. (It's inconsequential that Finland and Sweden, as members of the EU, aren't really sovereign in traditional sense.)
Huh, I feel better now
If you feel that you are an Ignorant American and you wish to work on not be one, you might consider re-reading the comments to this story but this time try to assume the perspective of a Finn or a Swede.(*) You're not doing it right if you can get to the bottom without getting angry. It's that bad.
And finally, this won't affect the legal situation between Microsoft and Lindows in the USA. At worst Lindows might have to change name of its overseas operations. Many companies and products are forced to do so.
--Flam,
who got a "troll" for this, and wonders what he'll get now
(*) How to do that. Finns are a lot like Canadians, not quite as good in ice hockey and with even more massive inferiority complex about our neighbors. Swedes are gay.
I should think you could. I'm not a lawyer and a Finn, not a bloody Swede, so just a laymans opinion here.
... not that made any difference in the end. :-)
Could I name my new product "Aurinko" and get a US trademark for it?
The English language is often used by Finnish companies just because this. I know this from a personal experience: I was able to use common English words for the name of my start-up a couple of years ago. A fairly good name, better than anything that was available in Finnish
--Flam