How about an unobtrusive implant as powerful as a modern workstation, wired to your nervous system, controlled by neural impulses and running the latest version of Windows?
Along with the accompanying clause in the EULA allowing Microsoft to alter your neurons as and when they deem it necessary. No thankyou!
My 59 year old mother manages linux with no problems. I do most admin tasks from my house 60 miles away including fixing things when X freezes, (adsl at both ends and a ssh tunnel).
That's the Act of Union. It's not a constitution, it's more of an economic treaty between Scotland and England.
No, that is the Treaty of Union, which upon ratification established the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Before 1707 Great Britain did not exist, the treaty determines the nature and scope of Great Britain and its governance. As, such it forms a constitution in that all laws in the UK must conform to its terms or be considered invalid. Yes, I am aware that that is not how things work out in practice, that is due to the failure, (probably deliberate,) of the treaty to establish a mechanism for upholding its provisions. Which is kind of similar to the situation in Stalin's Soviet Union, and very different from the situation in the US.
Yes, the British Constitution is vague. Incredibly so. It is based on case law and common law. There is no one document you can point to and say "That is the Constitution".
Yes, the British constitution is vague, and there is no one document that defines the constitution. However the Treaty of Union is the primary document of the British constitution in that any other document that defines the constitution ought to conform to it. I say ought, rather than must, as the Treaty is frequently ignored by the Westminster Parliament, and that no challenge to such an breach of the Treaty has ever been upheld.
it is a vague jumble of established laws dating back to the Magna Carta...
The Magna Carta applies to England (and perhaps Wales), it isn't part of Scottish or Northern Irish law. Except in so far as any rights granted by the Magna Carter to an Englishman must according to the Treaty of Union also be accorded to a Scotsman. The constitution of England and the UK are distinct entities, just as are the constitution of the EEC and the UK.
If you like a community and they're willing to have you that is fine, but to invite 19,999 friends along is a bit rude to say the least. Would you like 20,000 socialists moving in next door to you.
When you move to another state or country you should consider if you are willing to adapt to the prevailing customs and laws, if not you should stay away. To move to a place in order to instill your own ideas and norms is arrogant and presumptuous. What upsets and fustrates you is that voters have exercised their liberty and rejected your ideas. So move on but don't move in.
Haven't you heard that USB127348 will be able to carry a 'stream of consciousness'? It is expected that the first thought to be transferred across the new ultra fast versio of USB will be - "Wow! did you see that flying pig?"
I guess I was really talking about legal effect as it is pretty common to see US patents discussed as if they were International.
I figured that as not only were you precise in your choice of language you also highlighted that you were being precise. I just thought I would add the point you were leaving unsaid.
I agree about the yankee-centric nature of many commente here. After all, this is a place where the American Declaration of Independence is frequently cited to support the notion that rights are universal and natural, as opposed to legal and granted. That the citation of a legal document that prescribes these rights, is taken as proof that these rights do not come from law seems absurd to me. However, posts making such an argument are frequently moderated +5 insightful.
However, having said that I do believe that many of the rights granted to Americans should be universal, and granted to therest of us. I just believe that the arguments in support of these rights need to be more sophisticated than simple claims of right.
Similarly, many of the points made about IP law are uninformed and simplistic, but this does not mean that the grievances expressed in these posts are always unfounded.
Ideally you are right that people should educte themselves on the law on matters which interest them, but I'm sure you are aware that the time investment needed to do so can be disproportionate. Legal language is often based on the notion that language can have precise meaning. That is a fallacy a word means what a speaker and listener agree that it means. When I read a legal document I will often come across a piece ao legales I don't understand. So, I get out my dictionaries and work out what is being said. Having done that I will do an internet search for the term. It is amazing how often the meaning that I work out is precisely the opposite of what lawyers know it to mean. I've come to the conclusion that this happens because a lawyer says somethin in an offhand, or ironic, manner that is easily understood at the time and becomes the established way of making a point. Years later the language becomes archaic and the nuances are lost, except to those who are trained in the meaning of archaic terms. This is a huge barrier to anyone who does not make their living from the law.
When you add to this the tendency of IP lawyers to write patents in a manner that allows the broadest possible interpretation of the scope of the patent you end up with documents that are unintelligible to non specialists.
Usually it reduces to a policy call. After all, patents are inherently monopolistic - the hard thing is getting the balance right.
This is the nub of the problem. Ideas are inherently non monopolistic. The single great mind theory of invention is just plain wrong. While there is a need to protect those that invest large amounts of effort and money in R&D from predatory competition. Patents for trivial and incremental developments inhibit proper competition, (e.g. Amazon's one click patent).
As a layman I can easily conclude that copyright periods need to be reduced to something betwen ten and thirty years from date of publication. As you say it's a matter of judging the balance. Hower, patents are a much more complex area of IP and the balance is much harder for the layman to ascertain.
2. Patents are jurisdictional. Yes, other countries have patent systems which may or may not be identical to the US system. In fact, the US has some quite strange wrinkles compared with other places. Also, a US patent has NO legal effect outside the US (other than as prior art - like any other document...).
There may be no legal effect, but there is an economic effect. If a company wishes to sell a product on the world market, but it is blocked from the largest single market (i.e. the U.S.) it is deprived of a significant source of potential income. In the case of products which have high start up costs and require huge volumes of sales to generate profit this can lead to a product being unviable, just because it is blocked from one market.
So, if the U.S. patent system is broken there is a knock on effect in other markets.
5. If something annoys you about the patent system, do some research to find out if there is in fact a problem. For example the previous poster is concerned about people sitting on patents and not working them. Well, many countries have what are called compulsory licenses which cover situations where a patent isn't worked. Structures vary, but a quick bit of research should have revealed this legal mechanism.
Does the U.S. have such a system? If not the fact that other countries do will be a moot point in many instances. After all if a manufacturer is sued out of existence in the U.S. they also cease to exist in other markets, and if they can't sell into the U.S. they may never get of the ground.
I grant you that we've done some crazy things in this world, but it pales in comparison to the British Empire, Napoleon, and the Third Reich. Get off your high horse, please.
So the almost complete extermination of the native peoples of the territory that now constitutes the United States isn't significant?
It probably isn't, in the sense that the attitudes of America and Americans have changed a lot since the days of the Indian Wars. However, few present day Britons are racist imperialists, you'll not find many Nazis in present day Germany, and the French haven't marched across Europe for many a long year. So, your point was?
I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.
Laws can not violate your rights, though they can violate what is right (or what one believes to be right). A right is something that is granted by law, and can taken away by law. The notion that one has rights other than those granted by law is known as the theory of natural rights which Bentham described, as "nonsense upon stilts."
Any appeal to natural rights takes one of to forms. Either it can be a childish cry of 'I want,' or it can be an attemt to indicate something to be ethically right without reasoning why it is right. Consider the abortion debate at one extreme there is the childish 'my right to with my body what I want', at the other extreme is the 'right to life of the unborn child' based on nothing more than religous dogma. It isn't a question of which right trumps the other, there are no easy answers to the rights and wrongs of abortion.
When you say that you "abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights" all you are saying is that you don't like laws that prevent you doing what you want to do. Well tough shit, that is what laws are meant to do. Ideally laws should be for the greater good rather than just to protect a narrow sectional interest.
I don't like the current copyright laws because they tend to work against my interests. I would be prepared to accept them if it could be shown that they benefited the greater good, i.e. promoted the spread dissemination of knowledge and art, however I beliieve they do the opposite and so feel that a can argue for (rather than just demand) the reform of such laws.
They also forms the sheath and soft tissue in the penis. The phallus develops to become either a glans penis or a clitoris. The notion that penis equals clitoris is as accurate as the notion that the vagina and the urethra are the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
How about an unobtrusive implant as powerful as a modern workstation, wired to your nervous system, controlled by neural impulses and running the latest version of Windows?
Along with the accompanying clause in the EULA allowing Microsoft to alter your neurons as and when they deem it necessary. No thankyou!
My 59 year old mother manages linux with no problems. I do most admin tasks from my house 60 miles away including fixing things when X freezes, (adsl at both ends and a ssh tunnel).
That's the Act of Union. It's not a constitution, it's more of an economic treaty between Scotland and England.
No, that is the Treaty of Union, which upon ratification established the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Before 1707 Great Britain did not exist, the treaty determines the nature and scope of Great Britain and its governance. As, such it forms a constitution in that all laws in the UK must conform to its terms or be considered invalid. Yes, I am aware that that is not how things work out in practice, that is due to the failure, (probably deliberate,) of the treaty to establish a mechanism for upholding its provisions. Which is kind of similar to the situation in Stalin's Soviet Union, and very different from the situation in the US.
Yes, the British Constitution is vague. Incredibly so. It is based on case law and common law. There is no one document you can point to and say "That is the Constitution".
Yes, the British constitution is vague, and there is no one document that defines the constitution. However the Treaty of Union is the primary document of the British constitution in that any other document that defines the constitution ought to conform to it. I say ought, rather than must, as the Treaty is frequently ignored by the Westminster Parliament, and that no challenge to such an breach of the Treaty has ever been upheld.
it is a vague jumble of established laws dating back to the Magna Carta...
The Magna Carta applies to England (and perhaps Wales), it isn't part of Scottish or Northern Irish law. Except in so far as any rights granted by the Magna Carter to an Englishman must according to the Treaty of Union also be accorded to a Scotsman. The constitution of England and the UK are distinct entities, just as are the constitution of the EEC and the UK.
If you like a community and they're willing to have you that is fine, but to invite 19,999 friends along is a bit rude to say the least. Would you like 20,000 socialists moving in next door to you.
When you move to another state or country you should consider if you are willing to adapt to the prevailing customs and laws, if not you should stay away. To move to a place in order to instill your own ideas and norms is arrogant and presumptuous. What upsets and fustrates you is that voters have exercised their liberty and rejected your ideas. So move on but don't move in.
Haven't you heard that USB127348 will be able to carry a 'stream of consciousness'? It is expected that the first thought to be transferred across the new ultra fast versio of USB will be - "Wow! did you see that flying pig?"
Find it here.
I guess I was really talking about legal effect as it is pretty common to see US patents discussed as if they were International.
I figured that as not only were you precise in your choice of language you also highlighted that you were being precise. I just thought I would add the point you were leaving unsaid.
I agree about the yankee-centric nature of many commente here. After all, this is a place where the American Declaration of Independence is frequently cited to support the notion that rights are universal and natural, as opposed to legal and granted. That the citation of a legal document that prescribes these rights, is taken as proof that these rights do not come from law seems absurd to me. However, posts making such an argument are frequently moderated +5 insightful.
However, having said that I do believe that many of the rights granted to Americans should be universal, and granted to therest of us. I just believe that the arguments in support of these rights need to be more sophisticated than simple claims of right.
Similarly, many of the points made about IP law are uninformed and simplistic, but this does not mean that the grievances expressed in these posts are always unfounded.
Ideally you are right that people should educte themselves on the law on matters which interest them, but I'm sure you are aware that the time investment needed to do so can be disproportionate. Legal language is often based on the notion that language can have precise meaning. That is a fallacy a word means what a speaker and listener agree that it means. When I read a legal document I will often come across a piece ao legales I don't understand. So, I get out my dictionaries and work out what is being said. Having done that I will do an internet search for the term. It is amazing how often the meaning that I work out is precisely the opposite of what lawyers know it to mean. I've come to the conclusion that this happens because a lawyer says somethin in an offhand, or ironic, manner that is easily understood at the time and becomes the established way of making a point. Years later the language becomes archaic and the nuances are lost, except to those who are trained in the meaning of archaic terms. This is a huge barrier to anyone who does not make their living from the law.
When you add to this the tendency of IP lawyers to write patents in a manner that allows the broadest possible interpretation of the scope of the patent you end up with documents that are unintelligible to non specialists.
Usually it reduces to a policy call. After all, patents are inherently monopolistic - the hard thing is getting the balance right.
This is the nub of the problem. Ideas are inherently non monopolistic. The single great mind theory of invention is just plain wrong. While there is a need to protect those that invest large amounts of effort and money in R&D from predatory competition. Patents for trivial and incremental developments inhibit proper competition, (e.g. Amazon's one click patent).
As a layman I can easily conclude that copyright periods need to be reduced to something betwen ten and thirty years from date of publication. As you say it's a matter of judging the balance. Hower, patents are a much more complex area of IP and the balance is much harder for the layman to ascertain.
2. Patents are jurisdictional. Yes, other countries have patent systems which may or may not be identical to the US system. In fact, the US has some quite strange wrinkles compared with other places. Also, a US patent has NO legal effect outside the US (other than as prior art - like any other document...).
There may be no legal effect, but there is an economic effect. If a company wishes to sell a product on the world market, but it is blocked from the largest single market (i.e. the U.S.) it is deprived of a significant source of potential income. In the case of products which have high start up costs and require huge volumes of sales to generate profit this can lead to a product being unviable, just because it is blocked from one market.
So, if the U.S. patent system is broken there is a knock on effect in other markets.
5. If something annoys you about the patent system, do some research to find out if there is in fact a problem. For example the previous poster is concerned about people sitting on patents and not working them. Well, many countries have what are called compulsory licenses which cover situations where a patent isn't worked. Structures vary, but a quick bit of research should have revealed this legal mechanism.
Does the U.S. have such a system? If not the fact that other countries do will be a moot point in many instances. After all if a manufacturer is sued out of existence in the U.S. they also cease to exist in other markets, and if they can't sell into the U.S. they may never get of the ground.
I grant you that we've done some crazy things in this world, but it pales in comparison to the British Empire, Napoleon, and the Third Reich. Get off your high horse, please.
So the almost complete extermination of the native peoples of the territory that now constitutes the United States isn't significant?
It probably isn't, in the sense that the attitudes of America and Americans have changed a lot since the days of the Indian Wars. However, few present day Britons are racist imperialists, you'll not find many Nazis in present day Germany, and the French haven't marched across Europe for many a long year. So, your point was?
I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.
Laws can not violate your rights, though they can violate what is right (or what one believes to be right). A right is something that is granted by law, and can taken away by law. The notion that one has rights other than those granted by law is known as the theory of natural rights which Bentham described, as "nonsense upon stilts."
Any appeal to natural rights takes one of to forms. Either it can be a childish cry of 'I want,' or it can be an attemt to indicate something to be ethically right without reasoning why it is right. Consider the abortion debate at one extreme there is the childish 'my right to with my body what I want', at the other extreme is the 'right to life of the unborn child' based on nothing more than religous dogma. It isn't a question of which right trumps the other, there are no easy answers to the rights and wrongs of abortion.
When you say that you "abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights" all you are saying is that you don't like laws that prevent you doing what you want to do. Well tough shit, that is what laws are meant to do. Ideally laws should be for the greater good rather than just to protect a narrow sectional interest.
I don't like the current copyright laws because they tend to work against my interests. I would be prepared to accept them if it could be shown that they benefited the greater good, i.e. promoted the spread dissemination of knowledge and art, however I beliieve they do the opposite and so feel that a can argue for (rather than just demand) the reform of such laws.
They also forms the sheath and soft tissue in the penis. The phallus develops to become either a glans penis or a clitoris. The notion that penis equals clitoris is as accurate as the notion that the vagina and the urethra are the same thing.
If you think women pee from their vaginas I guess you'll need a roadmap to find a clitoris.