1) statistical likelihood of an event , while being good enough to reasonably prompt an investigation and perhaps require defense against an accusation, is not proof. So the chances are 1 in a billion, that that doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen. I bet I could find at least 1 lottery winner who bought only a few tickets in there lifetime. 2) More likely though there is a problem with selection criteria. How about , 'no family members who are members of the communist party'? Or no immediate family members who are citizens in foreign country? while not being normally reasonable criteria, those kinds of requirements might be perfectly reasonable if you are talking about wanting greater security than normal Top secret clearance.
This whole argument basically comes down to: Do you believe humans have intrinsic value ( if so where what cause that value, historically deity ( aka images of the Living God loved by Him) , is there another source?) OR From a materialist standpoint, human beings are just resources to be consumed and destroyed by whatever processes happen to be of no more particularly value then there interchangeability in the process. Survival of the fittest, might makes right.
unauthorized access , or tampering with a computer equipment is a crime in the united states, against the law, of coarse depends on your jurisdiction. But basically unless you are talking about some kind of 'social hack' anything that accessed Uber's software without their prior written consent and did anything they didn't like to it could land you with huge fines or in jail.
hmm... what is fair? Do human beings have a right to eat? Do they have a right to be able to feed families? Is it ok for employers to try and create situations where employees don't have the resources to educate themselves and their children so they cannot move to other area's or develop better skills that might make them able to demand more for their pay? How safe should work be? After all, if I can find people to work someone for just enough money to eat and a there are lots of others who starve , aren't I doing them a favor, even if a few hundred of them die from dangerous equipment a year?
The deeper problem is really a factor of worldview. Are human beings unique images of the eternal God , each of inestimable worth and in need of an opportunity to freely seek the expression of the good within themselves? OR Are human beings piles of chemicals, nothing more then an interesting happenstance of chance evolution, of no more value then dolphin a cat? Why or is slavery, sex slavery, prostitution and all the other crimes against humanity wrong? Is there such a thing as wrong or is a persons ability to do something the only factor that is important regardless of who and how we exploit each other as Darwinian theory would suggest.
Of coarse there is some room for spectrum in-between.
Any attempt to talk about minimum wage, or Just wage, or equality of persons, or 'rights' of any person has it's foundations in the first worldview. In the idea that there is such a thing as 'justice' and 'fairness' that exists exterior to and can be reasonably required of all people, can only be sustained as reasonable if human beings are something greater than the some total of their parts.
Once you have settles some of the larger issues then you can start to work out a definition of 'fair and just'. If you subscribe to the materialist world view any and everything is fair and just, so long as those in power can get away with it.
Yes, but I suspect part of what is currently working it's way to the court is an 'adding and abetting' kind of problem.
It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel ( assuming that is illegal in your country). It makes perfect sense copyright isn't lost if permission to make the copy was never given, the question is however, how much responsibility does the guy with cork board in the public bar have to keep business cards of the local pimps off of it?
Even in the case of an embedded link. It is the providing server that is serving the document. Not my server. Your client, request someone else's document from someone else's computer because I pointed to someone else's computer, and said, look over there.
Unless there are a lot more details then in the OP, this is basically the court misunderstanding the nature of the tech and will need to be corrected, because it is equivalent to claiming that 'If I post a copywriter image on a billboard and you take a picture of the city skyline that copyright has been violated if you publish your original photo'. Or even more accurately , 'IF I post a copyrighted image on a billboard and you show a video picture of the city skyline on a closed circuit television for profit , you are violating copyright'.
Putting content on a non-encrypted public http address without some kind of access control, is no different then publishing it on a billboard for everyone to see. If you don't understand why that is you don't belong dealing with web content as a lawyer or an author.
Now , things do get more complicated in cases like search engines that cache images or in the case of content saved and then loaded elsewhere, in part because if the image, or content was put on the web by mistake it becomes difficult or impossible to regain control of it. I suspect this case has something to do with cached images like the ones in Google search. Which could remain for months or year depending on the code. How difficult is it to remove your copyrighted material from these sites. I think this ruling is basically, just because I once made the image public doesn't mean I loose my right to remove it from the public, but that is because it is the only reasonable interpretation I can make. It may be a false assumption that the court is reasonable.
As noted in the Original article. Cash is not very anonymous. I'm not sure how anonymous, but every bill has a unique serial number that can be used to track it if it is involved in a crime. Does anyone have any familiarity with how often the numbers are logged or looked at? If the government wanted to they could require that all bills from cash transactions be logged out and in of banks so that the only way to anonymize cash would be through some 3rd party scheme ( which would probably be made illegal).
The perhaps sad reality is, most people are much more worried about money laundering and preventing sex slavery , organized crime and terrorism then they are about personal freedom. For better or worse the consensus seems to be more and better monitoring of everyone is acceptable so long as it helps to stop crime, if you don't agree I'd suggest looking up the Patriot Act and BSL. There is little or no concern that one day a totalitarian or authoritarian state could rise up and use all that infrastructure to coerce people into well, whatever they think is 'right' regardless of their particular leaning.
I suppose it is in the end a example of the breakdown of American society as a whole though. We don't trust each other or other people like we used to, because we have become philosophically more diverse and divisive. That and from what I can tell 80% of people on both sides of the isle cannot articulate a coherent philosophy of what they believe, which makes it easier to get them to just tow the party line because they are neither thinking things through or asking questions. I'm not sure if that % is modern day phenomena or a normal constant in human history.
oh sorry. Most of the people I run with assume if anyone says "let me put on my tinfoil hat" they are making a joke about something. Usually a conspiracy theory because in the movies the stock 'wacko conspiracy theorist often wears a tinfoil hat to protect his mind from being read by THEM'
ok, why was this moded as troll? Was it not obvious from the tinfoil hat comment that the first part was meant as humor? Although I was wondering how the target was picked and have heard from time to time of copywriter holders interfering with or hacking networks they didn't like. The Madonna hack of Napster comes to mind off the top of my head.
>>You're voluntarily entering into a agreement with a private company. YOU are giving them that right when you sign the agreement. True, however it is not possible to get needed services from any company that doesn't snoop on your data because of a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic collusion shored up by government bureaucracy. You could say the same thing about your bank, by having a bank account you agree to having all your personal business monitored and if you look suspicious your records turns over to police for further investigation, but that doesn't mean it is an end round of privacy laws, especially if there is no other choice for a sufficiently needed product.
>>> if they want to meter the amount of data fine, make it clear in the contract >>> response They do: That's only about half true, you and I know what the contracts mean, but do you really think the average non technical user on the street realize what type of monitoring of their data is done to accomplish the goals in the contract. On top of that if you ask someone in the store to clarify what they do you usually get an incorrect answer "I've tried it out". There law should require the contract to have large print say "WE RESERVER THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE,INSPECT AND USE FOR ANY INTERNAL PURPOUSES WE SEE FIT EVERTHING YOU TRANSMIT ACROSS OUR NETWORK, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTED OR IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM US". ( because that is the reality and most people have no idea about it).
>>> In T-mobile's case, if you don't want to get the "SD" streaming feed from a Binge On enabled streaming provider, you just disable Binge On. You get to eat through your data at the rate that you have full control over and get to pay as such. And AFAIK no one is is claiming that they block any traffic.
which in no way mitigates the fact they are looking at my DNS queries and evaluating and logging them in such a way that if the any entity issue a search warrant ( or breaks in) they can go through months of data.
>> Or it's a case of you not actually understanding how it works. No, I've written fire walls for a living and understand networking pretty deeply, not quite a professional network engineer but I have worked in security of one form or another all my life. I know what is needed to set up these kinds of features and object to their existence on principle and would happily pay a more ( assuming it was something I could afford) for an unlimited connections with guaranteed zero monitoring and active/ regular purge of all non billing related data. More to the point if you stop tracking people billing becomes really easy.
( (Cost of network operations + Cost of network maintenance) + %new expansion and development wanted + %profit you want to make)/ total number of network users.
Every network company has the same costs, and all of them are fixed except for amount for new investment and profit, so all these 'marketing strategies' are really nothing more then a complicated smoke screen to maximize profit, usually by disadvantaging and taking advantage of customer while at the same time compromising their security. If anyone knows of a company that doesn't do that and provides service in the most of the metro United States let me know who my new cell provider is please.
Why would a platform which is hated by many multibillion dollar corporations for being used to violates their legal rights be a target for malware. ( ok.... I think I will go put on my tinfoil hat now:) but then again it does make you kind of wonder. Does anyone else know who or why people target this kind of system with malware. I suppose it is also a good target because the machines may already be using large amounts of bandwidth so there is less chance of detection. Seriously though, anybody out there know why malware makers pick specific targets, what makes some easier ect.
My basic take it is this. No one especially a data carrier should have any right to inspect packets I PAY to transmit any more then they have the right to randomly search my car without legal cause and search warrant. It should and needs to be ILLEGAL for any data provided to in anyway inspect or log traffic contents or destinations unless it is for purposes of debugging a problem. If they want to meter the amount of data fine, make it clear in the contract, they have no more business knowing what I send and receive then the electric company who powers the routers. Sorry that doesn't allow carries to milk their current networks for every last penny they can stick it to people for , but customers have a right to privacy that includes not having a corporate hack decide which data I'm worthy to receive and what rates, we agree, I pay, end of story. All this traffic inspection is violation of basic privacy and as a society and as consumers we should vehemently oppose it. Perhaps apple and Google should start enabling router based TOR by default on their phones. Sad that it has to come to that, because tor is a bandwidth hog but if carriers aren't going to treat people right that is what everyone should start doing.
While considering this most modest proposal of 'eternal copy rite' I think we should also take pause to consider another terrible form of piracy so frequent today. That of creating a body of work, that's soul purpose is the critique of an existing piece of work. Obviously any monetary benefit derived from such a work , would not exist without the author of the original work. So much so that such works are derivative works par excellent of the original. Since the comments are bound to do nothing more then make the original less useful and worse then it's initially concise and proper format the author should retain control over Removing or modifying any comments not fully in the spirit of the original.
After all, all freedoms have limits , and freedom of speech certainly is of a lower value then an authors freedom to create wealth and provide a viable income to her/himself and future descendants.
Nuclear weapons lanched from the satalite in an attempt to destroy the mission control of various drones in space devistates the earth and ends all armed conflicts for centuries.
Hopefully space wars don't happen.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein
i hear so many 'claims' about how wind , solar, etc etc are all primed to take off and fix the power problem.
The fact we are still building nuclear reactors that run ( an extraordinarily low ) chance of causing HUGE casualties and making land uninhabitable for LIFETIMES , is unconscionable, if those claims are true.
Does anyone have any hard facts on the cost of electricity coming from solar or wind vs the same from Nuclear? Are the reasons primarily economic , or is their physics problems also preventing the use of other means to generate power?
aka , why are we building these instead of solar and wind farms?
I'm not trolling here, i'd really love some serious answers by someone who knows more about it then me.
Is there such a thing? Can you name a news outlet that isn't easily identified with a specific political agenda. Fox ( way right). CBS/NBC/CNN (mostly-left) PBS ( way left)
what else is there, most internet sources don't eve PRETEND to not be biased.
Does anyone even believe in objective journalism in anything more then theory anymore?
1) They are usually harvested from the entity translated too so less problem with rejection ( is this the case here the article didn't say). 2) The have been proven to work and use in many other places. 3) No one has any moral objections to them.
So many good reasons to not even worry about fetal stem cells , but no one ever bothers to talk about that.
That is why we have labor laws, OSHA, unions, and minimum wage act. The odd thing is , it we consider it wrong for us ( american workers) to be treated that way , but think nothing of expecting people in other countries to have that problem. This is a lot of what made off shoring economical in the first place. We should either require importers follow american style worker safety and EPA regulations or repeal our own. ( personally i favor the former as I'd rather not work in a country where the latter has happened).
The problem here is not the COPYRIGHT, but the COPYCAT. And actually, that is the main reason of creating the copyright, to prevent the copycat, not to prevent the copy-use, copy-download. What Zynga is doing is stealing in its true meaning. Not fair use, not format change, but STEALING.
?? what are they stealing? What property , that belongs to another person have they taken? What right to money , that belongs to another person have they taken? They are creating Knock-offs( like has and is done for just about every product in the market, for most of human history) . Sometimes their imitations sell better.
The whole , you are stealing if you violate copyright, is about half wrong headed as well. Violating copyright is stealing under the second not the first question. It would cease to be stealing if the laws were changed. It is certainly stealing , to violate the social contract and betray people trust, by not giving them money they are owed under the law. However, that is bounded by changes in the law. How can you be stealing something from someone by not giving them money they have no legal and therefore no reasonable, right to expect you to give to them?
The idea of 'intellectual property' is an artificial construct, created because information can have monetary value, but because it is artificial , it is like a virtual object. it only exists in so much as the 'legal' code causes it too.
if i copy work that was written by Beethoven and change it by adding elect guitars and record it with digital drums. Have I stolen something from him?
that could be easily fixed by requiring that shareholders actually take an interest in the companies they fund making a law requiring that a purchased stock may not be resold for at least 5 years, should just about do it.
Patents holders should be required to show yearly the amount of dollars invested in developing technology tied to the patent. If that level drops to zero for 3 year, the patent expires. If the company can be shown to be not actively using ( aka for making money) a patient then it can also be revoked by a court.
Same with copyright, if the holder is not keeping the work published and available for purchase at no more then 200% of the normal market value for similar products , then copyright should expire.
Both are about making money , and if money isn't being made they should be let go.
Also, the parent's complain would be benefited if there was something like a 'interface' copyright. that could be filed for.
Slashdot Mirror
2 problems.
1) statistical likelihood of an event , while being good enough to reasonably prompt an investigation and perhaps require defense against an accusation, is not proof. So the chances are 1 in a billion, that that doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen. I bet I could find at least 1 lottery winner who bought only a few tickets in there lifetime.
2) More likely though there is a problem with selection criteria. How about , 'no family members who are members of the communist party'? Or no immediate family members who are citizens in foreign country? while not being normally reasonable criteria, those kinds of requirements might be perfectly reasonable if you are talking about wanting greater security than normal Top secret clearance.
This whole argument basically comes down to:
Do you believe humans have intrinsic value ( if so where what cause that value, historically deity ( aka images of the Living God loved by Him) , is there another source?)
OR
From a materialist standpoint, human beings are just resources to be consumed and destroyed by whatever processes happen to be of no more particularly value then there interchangeability in the process. Survival of the fittest, might makes right.
unauthorized access , or tampering with a computer equipment is a crime in the united states, against the law, of coarse depends on your jurisdiction. But basically unless you are talking about some kind of 'social hack' anything that accessed Uber's software without their prior written consent and did anything they didn't like to it could land you with huge fines or in jail.
hmm... what is fair?
Do human beings have a right to eat? Do they have a right to be able to feed families? Is it ok for employers to try and create situations where employees don't have the resources to educate themselves and their children so they cannot move to other area's or develop better skills that might make them able to demand more for their pay? How safe should work be? After all, if I can find people to work someone for just enough money to eat and a there are lots of others who starve , aren't I doing them a favor, even if a few hundred of them die from dangerous equipment a year?
The deeper problem is really a factor of worldview.
Are human beings unique images of the eternal God , each of inestimable worth and in need of an opportunity to freely seek the expression of the good within themselves?
OR
Are human beings piles of chemicals, nothing more then an interesting happenstance of chance evolution, of no more value then dolphin a cat? Why or is slavery, sex slavery, prostitution and all the other crimes against humanity wrong? Is there such a thing as wrong or is a persons ability to do something the only factor that is important regardless of who and how we exploit each other as Darwinian theory would suggest.
Of coarse there is some room for spectrum in-between.
Any attempt to talk about minimum wage, or Just wage, or equality of persons, or 'rights' of any person has it's foundations in the first worldview. In the idea that there is such a thing as 'justice' and 'fairness' that exists exterior to and can be reasonably required of all people, can only be sustained as reasonable if human beings are something greater than the some total of their parts.
Once you have settles some of the larger issues then you can start to work out a definition of 'fair and just'. If you subscribe to the materialist world view any and everything is fair and just, so long as those in power can get away with it.
Yes, but I suspect part of what is currently working it's way to the court is an 'adding and abetting' kind of problem.
It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel ( assuming that is illegal in your country).
It makes perfect sense copyright isn't lost if permission to make the copy was never given, the question is however, how much responsibility does the guy with cork board in the public bar have to keep business cards of the local pimps off of it?
Even in the case of an embedded link. It is the providing server that is serving the document. Not my server. Your client, request someone else's document from someone else's computer because I pointed to someone else's computer, and said, look over there.
Unless there are a lot more details then in the OP, this is basically the court misunderstanding the nature of the tech and will need to be corrected, because it is equivalent to claiming that 'If I post a copywriter image on a billboard and you take a picture of the city skyline that copyright has been violated if you publish your original photo'. Or even more accurately , 'IF I post a copyrighted image on a billboard and you show a video picture of the city skyline on a closed circuit television for profit , you are violating copyright'.
Putting content on a non-encrypted public http address without some kind of access control, is no different then publishing it on a billboard for everyone to see. If you don't understand why that is you don't belong dealing with web content as a lawyer or an author.
Now , things do get more complicated in cases like search engines that cache images or in the case of content saved and then loaded elsewhere, in part because if the image, or content was put on the web by mistake it becomes difficult or impossible to regain control of it. I suspect this case has something to do with cached images like the ones in Google search. Which could remain for months or year depending on the code.
How difficult is it to remove your copyrighted material from these sites. I think this ruling is basically, just because I once made the image public doesn't mean I loose my right to remove it from the public, but that is because it is the only reasonable interpretation I can make. It may be a false assumption that the court is reasonable.
As noted in the Original article. Cash is not very anonymous. I'm not sure how anonymous, but every bill has a unique serial number that can be used to track it if it is involved in a crime. Does anyone have any familiarity with how often the numbers are logged or looked at? If the government wanted to they could require that all bills from cash transactions be logged out and in of banks so that the only way to anonymize cash would be through some 3rd party scheme ( which would probably be made illegal).
The perhaps sad reality is, most people are much more worried about money laundering and preventing sex slavery , organized crime and terrorism then they are about personal freedom. For better or worse the consensus seems to be more and better monitoring of everyone is acceptable so long as it helps to stop crime, if you don't agree I'd suggest looking up the Patriot Act and BSL. There is little or no concern that one day a totalitarian or authoritarian state could rise up and use all that infrastructure to coerce people into well, whatever they think is 'right' regardless of their particular leaning.
I suppose it is in the end a example of the breakdown of American society as a whole though. We don't trust each other or other people like we used to, because we have become philosophically more diverse and divisive. That and from what I can tell 80% of people on both sides of the isle cannot articulate a coherent philosophy of what they believe, which makes it easier to get them to just tow the party line because they are neither thinking things through or asking questions. I'm not sure if that % is modern day phenomena or a normal constant in human history.
oh sorry. Most of the people I run with assume if anyone says "let me put on my tinfoil hat" they are making a joke about something. Usually a conspiracy theory because in the movies the stock 'wacko conspiracy theorist often wears a tinfoil hat to protect his mind from being read by THEM'
No, wasn't serious, that was why I put the comment about the 'tinfoil hat' in there.
cultural varies by state. Louisiana is very different then Alabama or Texas.
ok, why was this moded as troll? Was it not obvious from the tinfoil hat comment that the first part was meant as humor? Although I was wondering how the target was picked and have heard from time to time of copywriter holders interfering with or hacking networks they didn't like. The Madonna hack of Napster comes to mind off the top of my head.
>>You're voluntarily entering into a agreement with a private company. YOU are giving them that right when you sign the agreement.
True, however it is not possible to get needed services from any company that doesn't snoop on your data because of a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic collusion shored up by government bureaucracy. You could say the same thing about your bank, by having a bank account you agree to having all your personal business monitored and if you look suspicious your records turns over to police for further investigation, but that doesn't mean it is an end round of privacy laws, especially if there is no other choice for a sufficiently needed product.
>>> if they want to meter the amount of data fine, make it clear in the contract >>> response They do:
That's only about half true, you and I know what the contracts mean, but do you really think the average non technical user on the street realize what type of monitoring of their data is done to accomplish the goals in the contract. On top of that if you ask someone in the store to clarify what they do you usually get an incorrect answer "I've tried it out".
There law should require the contract to have large print say "WE RESERVER THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE,INSPECT AND USE FOR ANY INTERNAL PURPOUSES WE SEE FIT EVERTHING YOU TRANSMIT ACROSS OUR NETWORK, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTED OR IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM US". ( because that is the reality and most people have no idea about it).
>>> In T-mobile's case, if you don't want to get the "SD" streaming feed from a Binge On enabled streaming provider, you just disable Binge On. You get to eat through your data at the rate that you have full control over and get to pay as such. And AFAIK no one is is claiming that they block any traffic.
which in no way mitigates the fact they are looking at my DNS queries and evaluating and logging them in such a way that if the any entity issue a search warrant ( or breaks in) they can go through months of data.
>> Or it's a case of you not actually understanding how it works.
No, I've written fire walls for a living and understand networking pretty deeply, not quite a professional network engineer but
I have worked in security of one form or another all my life. I know what is needed to set up these kinds of features and object to their existence
on principle and would happily pay a more ( assuming it was something I could afford) for an unlimited connections with guaranteed zero monitoring and active/ regular purge of all non billing related data. More to the point if you stop tracking people billing becomes really easy.
( (Cost of network operations + Cost of network maintenance) + %new expansion and development wanted + %profit you want to make)/ total number of network users.
Every network company has the same costs, and all of them are fixed except for amount for new investment and profit, so all these 'marketing strategies' are really nothing more then a complicated smoke screen to maximize profit, usually by disadvantaging and taking advantage of customer while at the same time compromising their security. If anyone knows of a company that doesn't do that and provides service in the most of the metro United States let me know who my new cell provider is please.
Why would a platform which is hated by many multibillion dollar corporations for being used to violates their legal rights be a target for malware. :) but then again it does make you kind of wonder. Does anyone else know who or why people target this kind of system with malware. I suppose it is also a good target because the machines may already be using large amounts of bandwidth so there is less chance of detection. Seriously though, anybody out there know why malware makers pick specific targets, what makes some easier ect.
( ok.... I think I will go put on my tinfoil hat now
My basic take it is this. No one especially a data carrier should have any right to inspect packets I PAY to transmit any more then they have the right to randomly search my car without legal cause and search warrant. It should and needs to be ILLEGAL for any data provided to in anyway inspect or log traffic contents or destinations unless it is for purposes of debugging a problem. If they want to meter the amount of data fine, make it clear in the contract, they have no more business knowing what I send and receive then the electric company who powers the routers. Sorry that doesn't allow carries to milk their current networks for every last penny they can stick it to people for , but customers have a right to privacy that includes not having a corporate hack decide which data I'm worthy to receive and what rates, we agree, I pay, end of story. All this traffic inspection is violation of basic privacy and as a society and as consumers we should vehemently oppose it. Perhaps apple and Google should start enabling router based TOR by default on their phones. Sad that it has to come to that, because tor is a bandwidth hog but if carriers aren't going to treat people right that is what everyone should start doing.
winzip -- easy to use , not much explanation needed.
While considering this most modest proposal of 'eternal copy rite' I think we should also take pause to consider another terrible form of piracy so frequent today. That of creating a body of work, that's soul purpose is the critique of an existing piece of work. Obviously any monetary benefit derived from such a work , would not exist without the author of the original work. So much so that such works are derivative works par excellent of the original. Since the comments are bound to do nothing more then make the original less useful and worse then it's initially concise and proper format the author should retain control over Removing or modifying any comments not fully in the spirit of the original.
After all, all freedoms have limits , and freedom of speech certainly is of a lower value then an authors freedom to create wealth and provide a viable income to her/himself and future descendants.
Nuclear weapons lanched from the satalite in an attempt to destroy the mission control of various drones in space devistates the earth and ends all armed conflicts for centuries.
Hopefully space wars don't happen.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
Thank you for re-iterating my point.
i hear so many 'claims' about how wind , solar, etc etc are all primed to take off and fix the power problem.
The fact we are still building nuclear reactors that run ( an extraordinarily low ) chance of causing HUGE casualties and making land uninhabitable for LIFETIMES , is unconscionable, if those claims are true.
Does anyone have any hard facts on the cost of electricity coming from solar or wind vs the same from Nuclear? Are the reasons primarily economic , or is their physics problems also preventing the use of other means to generate power?
aka , why are we building these instead of solar and wind farms?
I'm not trolling here, i'd really love some serious answers by someone who knows more about it then me.
Is there such a thing?
Can you name a news outlet that isn't easily identified with a specific political agenda.
Fox ( way right).
CBS/NBC/CNN (mostly-left)
PBS ( way left)
what else is there, most internet sources don't eve PRETEND to not be biased.
Does anyone even believe in objective journalism in anything more then theory anymore?
Three nice things about them:
1) They are usually harvested from the entity translated too so less problem with rejection ( is this the case here the article didn't say).
2) The have been proven to work and use in many other places.
3) No one has any moral objections to them.
So many good reasons to not even worry about fetal stem cells , but no one ever bothers to talk about that.
That is why we have labor laws, OSHA, unions, and minimum wage act.
The odd thing is , it we consider it wrong for us ( american workers) to be treated that way , but think nothing of expecting people in other countries to have that problem. This is a lot of what made off shoring economical in the first place. We should either require importers follow american style worker safety and EPA regulations or repeal our own. ( personally i favor the former as I'd rather not work in a country where the latter has happened).
The problem here is not the COPYRIGHT, but the COPYCAT. And actually, that is the main reason of creating the copyright, to prevent the copycat, not to prevent the copy-use, copy-download. What Zynga is doing is stealing in its true meaning. Not fair use, not format change, but STEALING.
?? what are they stealing?
What property , that belongs to another person have they taken?
What right to money , that belongs to another person have they taken?
They are creating Knock-offs( like has and is done for just about every product in the market, for most of human history) .
Sometimes their imitations sell better.
The whole , you are stealing if you violate copyright, is about half wrong headed as well.
Violating copyright is stealing under the second not the first question. It would cease to be stealing if the laws were changed.
It is certainly stealing , to violate the social contract and betray people trust, by not giving them money they are owed under the law.
However, that is bounded by changes in the law. How can you be stealing something from someone by not giving them money they have no legal
and therefore no reasonable, right to expect you to give to them?
The idea of 'intellectual property' is an artificial construct, created because information can have monetary value, but because it is artificial , it is like a virtual object.
it only exists in so much as the 'legal' code causes it too.
if i copy work that was written by Beethoven and change it by adding elect guitars and record it with digital drums.
Have I stolen something from him?
You can't steel what isn't there to steel.
that could be easily fixed by requiring that shareholders actually take an interest in the companies they fund making a law requiring that a purchased stock may not be resold for at least 5 years, should just about do it.
Patents holders should be required to show yearly the amount of dollars invested in developing technology tied to the patent.
If that level drops to zero for 3 year, the patent expires. If the company can be shown to be not actively using ( aka for making money) a patient then it can also be revoked by a court.
Same with copyright, if the holder is not keeping the work published and available for purchase at no more then 200% of the normal market value for similar products , then copyright should expire.
Both are about making money , and if money isn't being made they should be let go.
Also, the parent's complain would be benefited if there was something like a 'interface' copyright. that could be filed for.