Do a simple payment scheme. Lessing suggested a dollar a year, but I think this is administratively difficult. It would be easier to implement more money in payments over a longer time.
For example, the first 10 years are basically "free" with registration. Next 10 years costs $10 to renew. Next 10 years is $50. Next 10 years is $100. Then, follow with increments of $500 and $1000, topping out at $5000. Doing it in 10 year increments cuts down administration costs, while still guaranteeing that there are plenty of chances for things to fall into the public domain. It gives small authors a really great deal -- 40 years for $160. Even then, 60 years for $1600 is small stuff. Only after 80 years does it get above $10,000, which should be easily affordable for those whose copyrights are still collecting money after 80 years. The pricing may well change, but it seems to be self-financing, fairly easy to implement, while guaranteeing the intellectual commons.
"the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws."
Funny, that seems to be a notion that Hatch is supporting in his statement. Why don't you read the actual article instead of just blindly following the crowd?
It seems to me that Hatch is more interested in going after P2P companies, and is looking to move the procecuting of individual P2P participants from criminal to civil proceedings. It seems to me that the slashdot article is blowing this out of proportion. Compared to what the RIAA is trying to force on congress, this is mild.
Incidentally, I though Lessing had a great idea on charging companies to keep copyrights. However, his "$1 a year" tagline is impractical, as it would cost the government much more than $1 to process all the claims. Make it $10 to renew for 10 more years after then first 10 years. This cuts paperwork way down. Then, after 20 years, make it $50 for the next 10 years. After 30 years, make it $250 for the next 10 years. Then, make it $500 for each subsequent 10 year stint. Sell it to congress as a revenue stream, but it should be inexpensive enough to keep the RIAA and MPAA from trying too hard to kill it.
Many offer better price/performance than Dell
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 1
: Lots of good G5 rack comps from Apple give more power for lest $ than even Dell (the defacto standard for good'n'cheat).
--
Dell is only "De-facto" among the pointy-haired bosses. You can get much better price/performance almost everywhere. If Dell starts offering AMD processors along with Intel, that may change. But, until that happens, don't waste your money on Mike Dell's big paycheck. I find it real interesting how Apple fans *always* compare themselves to Dell and Intel, never to AMD powered systems.
Quite frankly, the military has cool stuff, and supports cool research. That is one positive mark for them. Second, I trust the military more than I do a bunch of hairbrained peaceniks or smooth talking politicians. Third, the military actually lays their life on the line to protect us, and I respect that even if politicians don't. Fourth, I know people in the military, and they are much more quality individuals than their detractors. I have no problem at all working on x-projects, and am actively looking for work that requires a security clearance. I find it offensive to be lumped into a group where it is assumed I only work on such research because I am adicted to government money.
Finally, as far as "dual use." Look around you. Everything is not only dual use, but triple and quadruple use. I can use a pencil sharpener to sharpen a pencil, or bonk someone on the head. Tools will be used in a variety of ways, and the military will use the research of peaceniks as readily as anyone else.
There is a big difference between theft and trading music. First, theft involves the taking of physical media, denying another person the use of it. Contrarily, in the trading of music, no one is denied access to any physical object. Further, you cannot even argue that the music industry is hurt directly as there is no way to tell whether someone would have paid money, or if they were just trying it because it was free. Second, trading music is different from piracy. Piracy involves getting money for selling copyrighted work you do not have permission to. Once again, this involves the exchange of physical media, and illegal profiting on account of the pirates. However, file sharing involves no such profiting. No money exchanges hands.
Quite frankly, there is legal precident for piracy not being the same as "stealing." I think it was posted on slashdot a while back that there was a case involving a person selling Elvis albums, and the judge determined that it was not stealing, but merely "infringement." File sharing is even more so, as there is no profit.
Finally, I consider file sharing to be part of academic perusal. For the most part, songs are not shared, but only "quotes" from songs. Note that lossy compression is in principle the same as quotation -- sharing only the important parts.
I think a jury would side with me. Remember, in the US the jury has the right to ignore the law if they feel the defendent is justified in what they did. I think it is much more likely that jurors will be freindly towards file sharing. I think I could handle the trial without so much as a lawyer.
Looks like your tanks don't have 24/7 "five nines" reliability. Shouldn't have had MS be your "tank software" subcontractor. It probably crashed and locked your crew in the tank, ala the BMW about a month ago.;-)
Yeah, it pisses me off when it happens to me as well.
McCalls is trying to get Monsterpatterns to give them money, and that comes straight from their president. His big beef was that MonsterPatterns was selling McCalls patterns without compensating McCall. That is what he thought was wrong, not the fact that they had McCall pictures on the website. Once again, the DMCA has been mis-used. Instead of taking up the issue of "indsider pattern trading" with Jolene's, MonsterPatterns, and private investigators, they are using the DMCA. This is clearly an "abuse of DMCA" case where you are guitly until proven innocent.
The president is actually a personable guy, though he did sound a little tired. He said he has called everyone back who has called about this, and I am inclined to believe it. He did say he had one lady he either described as "neurotic" or "crazy," I can't remember which. I kind of like the guy.
However, his big beef was that they were selling patterns they didn't buy. It wasn't the McCall images on the website. He also was mad about the patterns not being destroyed, and mentioned that someone at Jolene's was probably in cahoots with the Monsterpattern people. Having done dumpster-diving myself, I find it unlikely that they would get the quantity of patterns they have on their site by dumpster diving. The President said they have people investigating where he got his patterns, and they are working towards a settlement.
Having said that, and also including that I kind of liked the guy, I don't see any justification for using the DMCA. I didn't want to be confrontational (after all, he returned my call) so I didn't press him. But this is a clear case of the doctrine of "first sell." Once it is out there, whether they got it from a Jolene's manager or a dumpster, as long as he has the physical property, he can sell it. He can sell it over the counter or over the internet. I think they have a clear case of DMCA abuse. Now, collusion with Jolenes managers is an entirely different matter. But, this may go a long way toward generating enough bad publicity about the DMCA to result in it's modification.
They original operator transferred me to another secretary. The secretary said that she would tell the company president, and that he would call me back. He doesn't get out of meeting until 5:30 today, but she said he may call me tommorow.
I would encourage everyone else to also call up the company, and tell the secretary you want to talk to the president about the pending lawsuit. We can run up their phone bill and waste their time -- all at almost no expense to you. If you want to be heard on the DMCA, this is much more effective than writing your legislator.
BTW, the number, as someone poster earlier, is 1-800-782-0323
They rediscovered Brullion Scattering
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
Holy Cow! Imagine that! People have only been doing Brullion Scattering for 30 years to shift frequencies of light! Sorry, this is a science non-story, and is merely more incremental progress.
So, he's the best senator in the world when he fights Microsoft and the RIAA, but he has made a secret pact with the devil over the Patriot act? Could it possibly be that people holding political office are not just one-dimensional? Could problems be more than one-dimensional? Could different times lead to different solutions? Try to be less-reactionary in your political pronouncements.
Market long term average is 11% per year. If you are only getting 10% in 2 years, your fund stinks.
More likely are funds getting 20-40% growth the first year or two. Then, they get so much money that they have to put money in less attractive stocks to stay diversified. In the end, they get about market average and charge you a cool 2-3% for the privilage.
A much better option is to use an index fund. They have less turnover (less taxes), and are run by computer (no expensive human stock-pickers). The expenses on these funds run 0.02-0.05% -- i.e. almost nothing. If you are going to put your money in a fund, put it in the one with the least expenses, unless you really know something special. (Note: This is basically the advice from Motley Fool. I will start investing when I graduate, and have a house for my family squared away.)
Who cares if the jobs aren't coming back? The important thing is to create new jobs. There is no such thing as "job security" and their never has been. As long as you depend on someone else for a job you are in trouble. You need to keep your resume polished, and a list of potential partners for startup companies handy. However, true security only comes when your passive income (i.e. cashflow from investments) covers your living expenses. I hope to be there in ~20 years. In the meantime, look for the opportunities that the outflux of jobs creates, and take advantage. (I.e. think of what can be done with experienced tech people who are currently unemployed).
I think that stuffing it in a mountain is stupid but for a totally different reason: in 200 years or so someone is going to come up with some really neat use for all the exotic chemicals stuck away in the mountain. Then, they will have to bring all that waste back out of the mountain. It would make sense to design the waste facility to have better access, instead of wasting money on trying to warn people 10K years in the future not to go near it!
Neutron radiation is a problem. Unlike charged radiation (alpha and beta), they can travel long distances without absorption. Unlike neutrinos, they still have a decent cross section. However, their flux decreases as an inverse square of the distance, and people have been dealing with neutron sheilds for over 60 years.
Meanwhile, compare the danger of neutrons with the danger of radioactive elements in nature. Bannanas have a fair amount of potassium, and are fairly radioactive. "Fiestaware" plates and bowls are radioactive. Right now we are being bombarded with particle showers from cosmic rays. Further, and perhaps more importantly, coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material such as Uranium. This is much more dangerous than neutrons as they will go to your lungs when you breathe in the air. Then, it will release its alpha particle directly into your lungs where it is readily absorbed. Coal burning stations are much more of a radiation hazard than nuclear power plants. Combine all the natural sources of radiation, and compare it to the inverse square drop-off of neutron radiation, and it seems to me it will quickly die off compared to the background. Do you have any scientific studies demonstrating that neutron radiation from power plants is a real problem?
Finally, I am reminded of a story of an English teacher that had to teach a class in the Physics building. She was a little worried, and asked a physics professor if there was any radiation in her classroom. The professor smiled and told her there was radiation all around -- in the walls, in the air, everywhere. She was troubled by this, and then asked if there were any chemicals in the room. He jumped on this as well, and told her that there were chemicals in the desks, on the floor, and all over as well. She was quite scared, and had the classroom changed by the next class period! I wonder how many "nuclear protesters" know why this story is funny;-)
Thanks for bringing some balance to the equation. There are problems with the Hydrogen economy that are not adressed in the first article that the second article brings up. However, the article you linked to has some serious problems as well.
First, it takes as an axiom that environmentalists do not support nuclear power. Quite frankly, you cannot claim to be an environmentalist and oppose nuclear power. Let me restate that to make myself clear. Anyone who opposes nuclear power but calls themself an environmentalist is lying. Nuclear power is extremely environmentally freindly. Radicals who claim otherwise simply do not have the science to back up their claims. It was really funny to hear about people protesting the radioisotope generators on a deep-space probe when they had absolutely no evidence that there was any danger of contamination.
Second, it mentions the fact that various corporations have a real interest in generating the electricity that will be used to release hydrogen. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there is a carrot in front of their noses, they will do something about Hydrogen. The truth of the matter is that corporate R&D dwarfs federal funding of R&D. The more people work on it, the better things will be.
Finally, it fails to mention other solutions. Fusion is still "20 years away," but is obviously very desireable. Various plans for space-base microwave power plants could be done as well. While I don't like raising fuel taxes (it raises the price of everything), it should probably be phased in. There are other solutions out there that we havn't even thought of.
In fact, it's feeling better!;-) I think it is neat that people are utilizing technology in the ways they do. If they can make a 5 year old platform work, more power to them. In the meantime, I will be using my handspring.
It seems to me that if you tax religion, you have plenty of power to limit the practice of it. There is plenty of corruption worldwide, with many people getting out of taxes not due to exemptions, but due to corruption. Get religion into the mix, and all types of stuff would happen. Despite the supposed seperation of church and state, the state certainly plays favorites with secular humanism and moral relativism.
Finally, look at it practically. Give the money to government, and it filters through a number of agencies, politicians, and bureaucrats, all taking their share of the pie. Finally, a few cents will go to the people it is supposed to help. Give it to a religious charity, and usually all of it will go to the people it is supposed to help.
I copied the info from the bofh.org site, and sent it to my relatives. I will now look up the stores mentioned, and email it to them. I would encourage everyone to do a similar thing
The ALA says it is all for open access and all against censoring. However, in practice, it is quite different. They are more than happy to de-facto censor things they don't agree with while promoting their own political agenda.
For example, my local library has a web page where homosexuality is openly promoted. I don't want my tax dollars going towards the advancement of sexually destructive behavior, especially when my children are also exposed to this. At the same time, there is no balancing view. It is a de facto censorship on all non-politcally correct opinions. I wrote the library and mentioned to them that this was a clear violation of the "establishment of religion" clause of the constitution. They wrote back a pithy reply.
Hypocricy seems to be a rallying cry for the anti-censorship crowd. While they claim to want "freedom of speech" what they actually work for is a furthering of what they believe to be politically correct while censoring nonPC opinions. It was both funny and disgusting to read the keynote speach at the recent ALA meeting in Atlanta. The speaker talked about how librarians shouldn't censor anything, while all the time advancing his politics without pretense. He talked of tolerance, yet showed very little. It is just so typical of the over-the-top censorship crowd.
On the flip side, as a citizen it is my responsibility to keep the library as a good environment. My initial email may not have been effective, but I am going to email again, this time with more support. I also plan on enlisting the resources of the library itself to promote a more scientific and moral view on homosexuality.
I purchased a rather generic (Affrey?) DVD player ~3 years ago. I used it on my Linux box, though just as a CD player. This week I switched it to my wifes windows computer, and have tried to hook it up so that we can watch DVD's. (Notice the coincidence between that and the release of LOTR DVD;-)
The player that came with the WinDVD player, and it doesn't work. It says it won't work with a PC TV card that doesn't have Macrovision protection. I have an Asus Deluxe Combo with TV out that may or may not have Macrovision encoding. So, I downloaded the open source VideoLan client, but it doesn't play DVDs either. Is there something in hardware I am doing wrong, or am I just using the wrong software?
The business of recording music is basically a lottery. One group in thousands gets the big money, the rest get 0. Most of the times it is the image of the bands that sells the records. Sometimes, some truly talented performers get through. (I am listening to Charlotte Church right now. How can anyone have a voice like that?)
Now, don't think that just because you get a big record contract you will actually make money. This has become very obvious lately. In the congressional hearings Roger McGuinn of the Byrds mentioned that he made very little even though his group hit the bigtime. ( http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&w it_id=253
) He says
Even though I've recorded over twenty-five records, I cannot support my family on record royalties alone.
So the question is, how do you make money in the business? McGuinn mentioned that touring was how he made his money. Also, check out www.folkden.com to see how he promotes himself. Another folk singer (Peter Breinholt) who also testified at the congressional hearings had a similar report. ( http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/oldsite/1092000_p b.htm )He records his own CD's, tours heavily, and is very much a family man. He also offers many free samples of his music, live recordings, and even sheet music on his website ( www.Peterbreinholt.com ). He even returns e-mails. I am much more likely to buy his CD's for gifts (as I recently did for my brother) since I know he is an independent artist not working for the RIAA.
A freind of mine is getting his PhD in Saxaphone Performance. How will he make money when he graduates? The same way he does now -- by teaching. Music instruction will always have a market, and it is a market that is getting bigger as there are more middle-class famalies that can afford lessons or formal schooling. There are opportunities there.
There are also financial opportunities in the production of music. You can easily and cheaply make a recording studio. (I figure $10K for a computer, microphones, and sound deadening panels is cheap compared to what it used to be, and is fraction of the cost of a grand piano or a good harp) If you only apply your musical abilities to the getting of a recording contract, you are severely limiting your earning potential.
Finally, you have to realize that this is a market economy. I would like to be paid to browse slashdot, but nobody derives enough value from that to pay me. Despite a degree and somewhat marketable skills, I have worked on assembly lines , cleaned a lumber yard, and other odd jobs to provide for my family. Many other people have done grunt work as well. You have to pay your dues. You may have to work a real job, and do music on the side. Not every musician is going to make it. That is part of life as well.
Books, in general, are copyrighted. However, you can quote them without infringing copyright. Similarly, when you are sharing compressed music you are only sharing an excerpt from the music. Usually, you are only "quoting" a tenth of the information available.
However, you are ignoring the commercial aspect. You don't get money from the files you share on a p2p network. You are sharing the files in a noncommercial manner. The minute I get paid for the files I share is when I am breaking the law.
It is inevitable that as more CD's are mass-produced their price drops to a slim margin over the actual cost of materials. This is especially true for old albums. With packaging and handling that comes out to probably $3. Not suprisingly, this has happened first in classical music. I recently purchased 7 classical CDs with an average price of ~2.50 or so. Information is cheap in an information economy. If you aren't going to make enough money being a musician (and most don't) get a 9-5 and do music on the side. Better yet, teach it. There is always a demand for that.
If you release something and I buy it, I have the right to tell others what I think about it. I have the right to do research on it. I have the right to share excerpts, or quote excerpts from it. I have the right to make back-up copies. I have the right to loan it to convert it to a format that is more suitable for me. As long as I am not selling it or making money off it, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Physical property rights trump nebulous "intellectual property rights." If they don't trump them in legal circles, they will certainly trump them in de-facto practice as peer-to-peer services demonstrate.
Slashdot Mirror
You can only be as effecient as the pumping levels. It turns out that wallplug efficiency limits systems to about 50%.
For example, the first 10 years are basically "free" with registration. Next 10 years costs $10 to renew. Next 10 years is $50. Next 10 years is $100. Then, follow with increments of $500 and $1000, topping out at $5000. Doing it in 10 year increments cuts down administration costs, while still guaranteeing that there are plenty of chances for things to fall into the public domain. It gives small authors a really great deal -- 40 years for $160. Even then, 60 years for $1600 is small stuff. Only after 80 years does it get above $10,000, which should be easily affordable for those whose copyrights are still collecting money after 80 years. The pricing may well change, but it seems to be self-financing, fairly easy to implement, while guaranteeing the intellectual commons.
Funny, that seems to be a notion that Hatch is supporting in his statement. Why don't you read the actual article instead of just blindly following the crowd?
It seems to me that Hatch is more interested in going after P2P companies, and is looking to move the procecuting of individual P2P participants from criminal to civil proceedings. It seems to me that the slashdot article is blowing this out of proportion. Compared to what the RIAA is trying to force on congress, this is mild.
Incidentally, I though Lessing had a great idea on charging companies to keep copyrights. However, his "$1 a year" tagline is impractical, as it would cost the government much more than $1 to process all the claims. Make it $10 to renew for 10 more years after then first 10 years. This cuts paperwork way down. Then, after 20 years, make it $50 for the next 10 years. After 30 years, make it $250 for the next 10 years. Then, make it $500 for each subsequent 10 year stint. Sell it to congress as a revenue stream, but it should be inexpensive enough to keep the RIAA and MPAA from trying too hard to kill it.
--
Dell is only "De-facto" among the pointy-haired bosses. You can get much better price/performance almost everywhere. If Dell starts offering AMD processors along with Intel, that may change. But, until that happens, don't waste your money on Mike Dell's big paycheck. I find it real interesting how Apple fans *always* compare themselves to Dell and Intel, never to AMD powered systems.
Quite frankly, the military has cool stuff, and supports cool research. That is one positive mark for them. Second, I trust the military more than I do a bunch of hairbrained peaceniks or smooth talking politicians. Third, the military actually lays their life on the line to protect us, and I respect that even if politicians don't. Fourth, I know people in the military, and they are much more quality individuals than their detractors. I have no problem at all working on x-projects, and am actively looking for work that requires a security clearance. I find it offensive to be lumped into a group where it is assumed I only work on such research because I am adicted to government money.
Finally, as far as "dual use." Look around you. Everything is not only dual use, but triple and quadruple use. I can use a pencil sharpener to sharpen a pencil, or bonk someone on the head. Tools will be used in a variety of ways, and the military will use the research of peaceniks as readily as anyone else.
There is a big difference between theft and trading music. First, theft involves the taking of physical media, denying another person the use of it. Contrarily, in the trading of music, no one is denied access to any physical object. Further, you cannot even argue that the music industry is hurt directly as there is no way to tell whether someone would have paid money, or if they were just trying it because it was free. Second, trading music is different from piracy. Piracy involves getting money for selling copyrighted work you do not have permission to. Once again, this involves the exchange of physical media, and illegal profiting on account of the pirates. However, file sharing involves no such profiting. No money exchanges hands.
Quite frankly, there is legal precident for piracy not being the same as "stealing." I think it was posted on slashdot a while back that there was a case involving a person selling Elvis albums, and the judge determined that it was not stealing, but merely "infringement." File sharing is even more so, as there is no profit.
Finally, I consider file sharing to be part of academic perusal. For the most part, songs are not shared, but only "quotes" from songs. Note that lossy compression is in principle the same as quotation -- sharing only the important parts.
I think a jury would side with me. Remember, in the US the jury has the right to ignore the law if they feel the defendent is justified in what they did. I think it is much more likely that jurors will be freindly towards file sharing. I think I could handle the trial without so much as a lawyer.
Looks like your tanks don't have 24/7 "five nines" reliability. Shouldn't have had MS be your "tank software" subcontractor. It probably crashed and locked your crew in the tank, ala the BMW about a month ago. ;-)
Yeah, it pisses me off when it happens to me as well.
McCalls is trying to get Monsterpatterns to give them money, and that comes straight from their president. His big beef was that MonsterPatterns was selling McCalls patterns without compensating McCall. That is what he thought was wrong, not the fact that they had McCall pictures on the website. Once again, the DMCA has been mis-used. Instead of taking up the issue of "indsider pattern trading" with Jolene's, MonsterPatterns, and private investigators, they are using the DMCA. This is clearly an "abuse of DMCA" case where you are guitly until proven innocent.
The president is actually a personable guy, though he did sound a little tired. He said he has called everyone back who has called about this, and I am inclined to believe it. He did say he had one lady he either described as "neurotic" or "crazy," I can't remember which. I kind of like the guy.
However, his big beef was that they were selling patterns they didn't buy. It wasn't the McCall images on the website. He also was mad about the patterns not being destroyed, and mentioned that someone at Jolene's was probably in cahoots with the Monsterpattern people. Having done dumpster-diving myself, I find it unlikely that they would get the quantity of patterns they have on their site by dumpster diving. The President said they have people investigating where he got his patterns, and they are working towards a settlement.
Having said that, and also including that I kind of liked the guy, I don't see any justification for using the DMCA. I didn't want to be confrontational (after all, he returned my call) so I didn't press him. But this is a clear case of the doctrine of "first sell." Once it is out there, whether they got it from a Jolene's manager or a dumpster, as long as he has the physical property, he can sell it. He can sell it over the counter or over the internet. I think they have a clear case of DMCA abuse. Now, collusion with Jolenes managers is an entirely different matter. But, this may go a long way toward generating enough bad publicity about the DMCA to result in it's modification.
They original operator transferred me to another secretary. The secretary said that she would tell the company president, and that he would call me back. He doesn't get out of meeting until 5:30 today, but she said he may call me tommorow.
I would encourage everyone else to also call up the company, and tell the secretary you want to talk to the president about the pending lawsuit. We can run up their phone bill and waste their time -- all at almost no expense to you. If you want to be heard on the DMCA, this is much more effective than writing your legislator.
BTW, the number, as someone poster earlier, is 1-800-782-0323
Holy Cow! Imagine that! People have only been doing Brullion Scattering for 30 years to shift frequencies of light! Sorry, this is a science non-story, and is merely more incremental progress.
So, he's the best senator in the world when he fights Microsoft and the RIAA, but he has made a secret pact with the devil over the Patriot act? Could it possibly be that people holding political office are not just one-dimensional? Could problems be more than one-dimensional? Could different times lead to different solutions? Try to be less-reactionary in your political pronouncements.
Market long term average is 11% per year. If you are only getting 10% in 2 years, your fund stinks.
More likely are funds getting 20-40% growth the first year or two. Then, they get so much money that they have to put money in less attractive stocks to stay diversified. In the end, they get about market average and charge you a cool 2-3% for the privilage.
A much better option is to use an index fund. They have less turnover (less taxes), and are run by computer (no expensive human stock-pickers). The expenses on these funds run 0.02-0.05% -- i.e. almost nothing. If you are going to put your money in a fund, put it in the one with the least expenses, unless you really know something special. (Note: This is basically the advice from Motley Fool. I will start investing when I graduate, and have a house for my family squared away.)
Who cares if the jobs aren't coming back? The important thing is to create new jobs. There is no such thing as "job security" and their never has been. As long as you depend on someone else for a job you are in trouble. You need to keep your resume polished, and a list of potential partners for startup companies handy. However, true security only comes when your passive income (i.e. cashflow from investments) covers your living expenses. I hope to be there in ~20 years. In the meantime, look for the opportunities that the outflux of jobs creates, and take advantage. (I.e. think of what can be done with experienced tech people who are currently unemployed).
Meanwhile, compare the danger of neutrons with the danger of radioactive elements in nature. Bannanas have a fair amount of potassium, and are fairly radioactive. "Fiestaware" plates and bowls are radioactive. Right now we are being bombarded with particle showers from cosmic rays. Further, and perhaps more importantly, coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material such as Uranium. This is much more dangerous than neutrons as they will go to your lungs when you breathe in the air. Then, it will release its alpha particle directly into your lungs where it is readily absorbed. Coal burning stations are much more of a radiation hazard than nuclear power plants. Combine all the natural sources of radiation, and compare it to the inverse square drop-off of neutron radiation, and it seems to me it will quickly die off compared to the background. Do you have any scientific studies demonstrating that neutron radiation from power plants is a real problem?
Finally, I am reminded of a story of an English teacher that had to teach a class in the Physics building. She was a little worried, and asked a physics professor if there was any radiation in her classroom. The professor smiled and told her there was radiation all around -- in the walls, in the air, everywhere. She was troubled by this, and then asked if there were any chemicals in the room. He jumped on this as well, and told her that there were chemicals in the desks, on the floor, and all over as well. She was quite scared, and had the classroom changed by the next class period! I wonder how many "nuclear protesters" know why this story is funny ;-)
First, it takes as an axiom that environmentalists do not support nuclear power. Quite frankly, you cannot claim to be an environmentalist and oppose nuclear power. Let me restate that to make myself clear. Anyone who opposes nuclear power but calls themself an environmentalist is lying. Nuclear power is extremely environmentally freindly. Radicals who claim otherwise simply do not have the science to back up their claims. It was really funny to hear about people protesting the radioisotope generators on a deep-space probe when they had absolutely no evidence that there was any danger of contamination.
Second, it mentions the fact that various corporations have a real interest in generating the electricity that will be used to release hydrogen. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there is a carrot in front of their noses, they will do something about Hydrogen. The truth of the matter is that corporate R&D dwarfs federal funding of R&D. The more people work on it, the better things will be.
Finally, it fails to mention other solutions. Fusion is still "20 years away," but is obviously very desireable. Various plans for space-base microwave power plants could be done as well. While I don't like raising fuel taxes (it raises the price of everything), it should probably be phased in. There are other solutions out there that we havn't even thought of.
In fact, it's feeling better! ;-) I think it is neat that people are utilizing technology in the ways they do. If they can make a 5 year old platform work, more power to them. In the meantime, I will be using my handspring.
It seems to me that if you tax religion, you have plenty of power to limit the practice of it. There is plenty of corruption worldwide, with many people getting out of taxes not due to exemptions, but due to corruption. Get religion into the mix, and all types of stuff would happen. Despite the supposed seperation of church and state, the state certainly plays favorites with secular humanism and moral relativism.
Finally, look at it practically. Give the money to government, and it filters through a number of agencies, politicians, and bureaucrats, all taking their share of the pie. Finally, a few cents will go to the people it is supposed to help. Give it to a religious charity, and usually all of it will go to the people it is supposed to help.
I copied the info from the bofh.org site, and sent it to my relatives. I will now look up the stores mentioned, and email it to them. I would encourage everyone to do a similar thing
The ALA says it is all for open access and all against censoring. However, in practice, it is quite different. They are more than happy to de-facto censor things they don't agree with while promoting their own political agenda.
For example, my local library has a web page where homosexuality is openly promoted. I don't want my tax dollars going towards the advancement of sexually destructive behavior, especially when my children are also exposed to this. At the same time, there is no balancing view. It is a de facto censorship on all non-politcally correct opinions. I wrote the library and mentioned to them that this was a clear violation of the "establishment of religion" clause of the constitution. They wrote back a pithy reply.
Hypocricy seems to be a rallying cry for the anti-censorship crowd. While they claim to want "freedom of speech" what they actually work for is a furthering of what they believe to be politically correct while censoring nonPC opinions. It was both funny and disgusting to read the keynote speach at the recent ALA meeting in Atlanta. The speaker talked about how librarians shouldn't censor anything, while all the time advancing his politics without pretense. He talked of tolerance, yet showed very little. It is just so typical of the over-the-top censorship crowd.
On the flip side, as a citizen it is my responsibility to keep the library as a good environment. My initial email may not have been effective, but I am going to email again, this time with more support. I also plan on enlisting the resources of the library itself to promote a more scientific and moral view on homosexuality.
The player that came with the WinDVD player, and it doesn't work. It says it won't work with a PC TV card that doesn't have Macrovision protection. I have an Asus Deluxe Combo with TV out that may or may not have Macrovision encoding. So, I downloaded the open source VideoLan client, but it doesn't play DVDs either. Is there something in hardware I am doing wrong, or am I just using the wrong software?
Thanks.
Now, don't think that just because you get a big record contract you will actually make money. This has become very obvious lately. In the congressional hearings Roger McGuinn of the Byrds mentioned that he made very little even though his group hit the bigtime. ( http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&w it_id=253
) He says
So the question is, how do you make money in the business? McGuinn mentioned that touring was how he made his money. Also, check out www.folkden.com to see how he promotes himself. Another folk singer (Peter Breinholt) who also testified at the congressional hearings had a similar report. ( http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/oldsite/1092000_p b.htm )He records his own CD's, tours heavily, and is very much a family man. He also offers many free samples of his music, live recordings, and even sheet music on his website ( www.Peterbreinholt.com ). He even returns e-mails. I am much more likely to buy his CD's for gifts (as I recently did for my brother) since I know he is an independent artist not working for the RIAA.
A freind of mine is getting his PhD in Saxaphone Performance. How will he make money when he graduates? The same way he does now -- by teaching. Music instruction will always have a market, and it is a market that is getting bigger as there are more middle-class famalies that can afford lessons or formal schooling. There are opportunities there.
There are also financial opportunities in the production of music. You can easily and cheaply make a recording studio. (I figure $10K for a computer, microphones, and sound deadening panels is cheap compared to what it used to be, and is fraction of the cost of a grand piano or a good harp) If you only apply your musical abilities to the getting of a recording contract, you are severely limiting your earning potential.
Finally, you have to realize that this is a market economy. I would like to be paid to browse slashdot, but nobody derives enough value from that to pay me. Despite a degree and somewhat marketable skills, I have worked on assembly lines , cleaned a lumber yard, and other odd jobs to provide for my family. Many other people have done grunt work as well. You have to pay your dues. You may have to work a real job, and do music on the side. Not every musician is going to make it. That is part of life as well.
Books, in general, are copyrighted. However, you can quote them without infringing copyright. Similarly, when you are sharing compressed music you are only sharing an excerpt from the music. Usually, you are only "quoting" a tenth of the information available.
However, you are ignoring the commercial aspect. You don't get money from the files you share on a p2p network. You are sharing the files in a noncommercial manner. The minute I get paid for the files I share is when I am breaking the law.
It is inevitable that as more CD's are mass-produced their price drops to a slim margin over the actual cost of materials. This is especially true for old albums. With packaging and handling that comes out to probably $3. Not suprisingly, this has happened first in classical music. I recently purchased 7 classical CDs with an average price of ~2.50 or so. Information is cheap in an information economy. If you aren't going to make enough money being a musician (and most don't) get a 9-5 and do music on the side. Better yet, teach it. There is always a demand for that.
If you release something and I buy it, I have the right to tell others what I think about it. I have the right to do research on it. I have the right to share excerpts, or quote excerpts from it. I have the right to make back-up copies. I have the right to loan it to convert it to a format that is more suitable for me. As long as I am not selling it or making money off it, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Physical property rights trump nebulous "intellectual property rights." If they don't trump them in legal circles, they will certainly trump them in de-facto practice as peer-to-peer services demonstrate.