>...they had a solution to certain problems that you can't have in a space ship. You can't put discontents on an island in the fashion of Robinson Cruscoe, or set them adrift in a boat like Captain Bligh was.
They have a solution...
They call it an 'Air Lock'.
Re:What's googles version going to be called??
on
Yahoo Pipes
·
· Score: 1
>I'm hoping that soon Google will name some new service "G-Whiz"
>How is the government committing an autoimmune "attack" on you by shutting down some subways and bridges?
On me? Not at all. On the guys who put the signs up, slandering them by erroneously stating that they were putting up hoax devices, subjecting them to arrest, etc. Yeah... that was an attack. Mostly, however, I was referring to all the anti-freedom, privacy-invading and generally-authoritarian laws and the climate of fear and oppression - eg. photographers being harassed - that the government inflicts upon its own citizens.
But the people who scare me shitless aren't the terrorists, they're our government(s).
They have much more power, are more prevalent, pervasive and their influence reaces further into our lives than any terrorist group ever will. They and their autoimmune attacks on us are 'some scary shit'. They're the ones who are assaulting our 'way of life' on a daily basis; they're the ones we really have to contend with.
Who is there to protect us when the fear comes from the protector? (As someone once said.)
I think I'll wait too. Especially since Microsoft's indefensible policy of charging TWICE the price for Vista in the UK as in the US. (Bunch of crooks!)
Owning public domain content because you show it is like owning some air because you once exhaled it. I think Native Americans had something similar to say about people owning the land. Just because it seems absurd, doesn't mean some greedy bastard won't try to own it.
Ultimately it's all 'we say it's so, and we're backing it up with physical force' - doesn't matter whether it's crazy or not.
Information can only be gathered and used for a specified purpose - you can't "reuse" information for purposes other than those for which it was gathered. Maybe they have a specific purpose - they only need to cstate it - they want to have a broad overview of everyone's behaviour so they can lock them up if their assessment of that behaviour indicates that they may become a future criminal:[Empasis mine]
The government is planning "behaviour orders" for people considered to be at risk of committing a violent crime.
The orders, similar in principle to Asbos, would put curfews or other restrictions on potential offenders, who might have no criminal convictions.
The Sunday Times reported that "risk factors" that could lead to a person being subject to an order would include a person's upbringing, "cognitive deficiencies", "entrenched pro-criminal or antisocial attitudes", or "a history of substance abuse or mental health issues".
Police get rewarded for arresting people and prosecutors get rewarded for convictions. Because of that, they'll tailor thier processes to that end. Maybe they need a points system that punishes their beligerence: +1 per conviction -10 per false conviction.
I agree with most of what you say, except for this point:
[Solo's] pretty much the only icon left that Lucas didn't demolish yet by teaching you that, see, he wasn't that great a guy after all. Because, of course, Lucas DID demolish Solo - by upturning the defining moment of his character - he made him shoot second.
New UK subscribers cannot get a 'gmail' account, it has to be 'googlemail'. I believe, however, that even though a new UK account will be called whoever@googlemail.com, the account owner still gets the address whoever@gmail.com.
So would it be true to say that the purpose of copyright is to mimic depreciation in real-world goods? No. The purpose of copyright is to provide the greatest benefit to the comunity by providing an incentive to create in the form of an artificial monopoly for a limited duration. I don't think that's the full picture though. The purpose of copyright was originally to give a monopoly to a person for a work in exchange for money paid to the king. The US constitution modified this and tried to give it more noble intentions, as you mention.
What we're finding out now, is that, at least in the eyes of the state, like a salmon returning to it's birthplace, copyright is returning to its original purpose and it's all about money and monopoly control.
What I'm still undecided about is whether 'copyright is a bad seed and its basic nature will always win out'.
> Copyright was instituted for society so work would be created.
As I understand it, originally, copyright was a monopoly handed out by the King, usually in return for money.
This is the problem - although there have been laudable attempts to bend 'intellectual monopolies' to the benefit of society (limited times for the advancement... etc,) at root, copyright is about restricting dissemination of culture/creativity for the benefit of a few (the monopoly holder of that creative expression): the noble objectives are just patches; the kernel is about restiction.
Human's being what they are, greed sets in, and whaddayaknow, the patches are circumvented to return copyright to its original purpose - a simple monopoly state.
"Theft" is a fair term, but I think "Piracy" is even better.
Pirates (on the high seas - with the various missing limbs, gold-lust and parrot-shit stains down their backs) essentially stop a cargo from reaching its destination, taking it for themselves.
The extenders of copyright do the same - prevent various artistic works from reaching their destination - the public domain. Ergo, (perpetual (and we all know they're perpetual)) Copyright Extensions are Piracy.
> "But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as 'a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage'."
Yeah, that's right, it's a conspiracy! Honestly, is it any wonder we regard them as out of touch? They think it's anyone's fault but their own.
> Instead of talking about temporary monopolies, we talk about "intellectual property."
Very good point. I've been thinking about this myself, and I think simply re-naming such things as "Intellectual Monopolies" might help the debate - 'temporary monopolies' doesn't quite define the nature of the monopoly - maybe "temporary intellectual monopolies", but that seems like a little too unwieldy.
Usage: "The corporation is protecting it's intellectual monopoly rights."
"People are increasingly becoming aware that intellectual monopoly rights are too restrictive and punitive to those who breach those monopolies."
It's an interesting flashpoint, I think: the point at which a people's culture and the system whereby someone else can actually own that culture, meet.
It's a point that the limited times of the early copyright laws directly addressed, and which has repeatedly been swept away by the rich, the greedy and the powerful, for their own mean and selfish ends.
> Another politician calling for action in places without even thinking.
Oh, he's thinking - about how scoring a cheap point by making himself look 'tough' on people percievable as wrongdoers, will score him political points with an "Election Day drawing near".
That's a politician's priority - exploiting the uninformed electorate by pushing buttons regardless of the truth.
Politics is about number one, everything else is by the by.
I'm afraid not. Haven't you ever noticed the blurb included on DVDs and videos saying that public performance and unauthorised lending is prohibited? Public performance is certainly not distribution, it's just viewing the media with a few more associates than might otherwise be the case. Likewise, 'lending' - it's not 'distribution' in the same way that re-selling isn't - it's making use of a legally purchased copy, without duplication.
You're onto a loser whenever anyone says copyright isn't about this or is about that - copyright is a monstrous beast! Born as an evil monopolistic pact, later tamed with noble intentions and a limited lifespan, it threw off its bindings, growing and mutating into something that's about whatever the large, rich powerful copyright cartels want, through an endless series of modifications, grafts, bastardisations and revisions.
And this will continue until politicians stop screwing everyone for the sefish interests of a few powerful people.
> One would expect such problems to disappear over time (especially when the system is widely implemented).
One might, but in the UK, councils began charging businesses for the depositing of commercial waste in land-fill sites, a few years ago.
The result has been an explosion in the cases of fly-tipping: innocent land-owners - those who own a piece of open land - and it can be anything from a building site to grassland to a carpark - have refuse tipped on their land, and then face a huge bill to clear up the rubbish. If the landowner fails to clear it up, the council can, and does, apply a court order forcing them to clear it up, at their own cost - and if they fail to do so, the council will clear it up themselves and send the land-owner the bill!
In some cases, fly-tipping will even occur on land that is supposedly secure - fenced off - and the fly-tippers will even cut through padlocks to open gates to land where they can offload their waste.
The reason for this is that it's very lucrative to the fly-tippers - who undercut the council's charges (and don't generally care about the exact nature of the rubbish - hazardous chemicals, medical waste, etc.) and very good business sense for the businesses who use fly-tippers.
Charging people for the disposal of waste discourages them from using the service and leads people to seek other cheaper or no-cost ways of ridding themselves of their rubbish.
If the scheme outlined in the news-story is implemented, domestic waste will join the massive problem that commercial waste fly-tipping is causing here in the UK. Neighbour's bins will be used, public areas, parks, skips, anything to get out of paying.
The solution? For commercial waste - slap a blanket charge on every business that is likely to use the service that they pay along with their rates/taxes, and can't get out of - it becomes pointless for them to avoid using the official land-fill. For residential waste - stick with the system we have now - a service charge via the grossly unfair and unjust council tax.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a solution...
They call it an 'Air Lock'.
I think it's their new IP distribution service.
On me? Not at all. On the guys who put the signs up, slandering them by erroneously stating that they were putting up hoax devices, subjecting them to arrest, etc. Yeah ... that was an attack. Mostly, however, I was referring to all the anti-freedom, privacy-invading and generally-authoritarian laws and the climate of fear and oppression - eg. photographers being harassed - that the government inflicts upon its own citizens.
Imagine how big the reaction if the Ad guys had included a timer counting down to the ATHF movie's release. :-O
I am.
But the people who scare me shitless aren't the terrorists, they're our government(s).
They have much more power, are more prevalent, pervasive and their influence reaces further into our lives than any terrorist group ever will. They and their autoimmune attacks on us are 'some scary shit'. They're the ones who are assaulting our 'way of life' on a daily basis; they're the ones we really have to contend with.
Who is there to protect us when the fear comes from the protector? (As someone once said.)
I'm still waiting for them to implement -1 PEDANT. :)
I think I'll wait too. Especially since Microsoft's indefensible policy of charging TWICE the price for Vista in the UK as in the US. (Bunch of crooks!)
Ultimately it's all 'we say it's so, and we're backing it up with physical force' - doesn't matter whether it's crazy or not.
The Sunday Times reported that "risk factors" that could lead to a person being subject to an order would include a person's upbringing, "cognitive deficiencies", "entrenched pro-criminal or antisocial attitudes", or "a history of substance abuse or mental health issues".
Link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261791.stmNot to mention a spelling-free zone.
What we're finding out now, is that, at least in the eyes of the state, like a salmon returning to it's birthplace, copyright is returning to its original purpose and it's all about money and monopoly control.
What I'm still undecided about is whether 'copyright is a bad seed and its basic nature will always win out'.
> Copyright was instituted for society so work would be created.
As I understand it, originally, copyright was a monopoly handed out by the King, usually in return for money.
This is the problem - although there have been laudable attempts to bend 'intellectual monopolies' to the benefit of society (limited times for the advancement... etc,) at root, copyright is about restricting dissemination of culture/creativity for the benefit of a few (the monopoly holder of that creative expression): the noble objectives are just patches; the kernel is about restiction.
Human's being what they are, greed sets in, and whaddayaknow, the patches are circumvented to return copyright to its original purpose - a simple monopoly state.
"Theft" is a fair term, but I think "Piracy" is even better.
Pirates (on the high seas - with the various missing limbs, gold-lust and parrot-shit stains down their backs) essentially stop a cargo from reaching its destination, taking it for themselves.
The extenders of copyright do the same - prevent various artistic works from reaching their destination - the public domain. Ergo, (perpetual (and we all know they're perpetual)) Copyright Extensions are Piracy.
Y'know that thing that got me?
All the people standing around doing absolutely nothing, while a fellow human was being tortured by a bunch of thugs.
How well people have been trained to remain docile and compliant while 'authority' inflicts abuse and brutality on us.
> "But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as 'a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage'."
Yeah, that's right, it's a conspiracy!
Honestly, is it any wonder we regard them as out of touch? They think it's anyone's fault but their own.
> Instead of talking about temporary monopolies, we talk about "intellectual property."
Very good point. I've been thinking about this myself, and I think simply re-naming such things as "Intellectual Monopolies" might help the debate - 'temporary monopolies' doesn't quite define the nature of the monopoly - maybe "temporary intellectual monopolies", but that seems like a little too unwieldy.
Usage: "The corporation is protecting it's intellectual monopoly rights."
"People are increasingly becoming aware that intellectual monopoly rights are too restrictive and punitive to those who breach those monopolies."
> Hell I have a friend who jokes about Aids and he had a few of his friends die of it.
Laughter is the best medicine.
Maybe he shoulda told them some of his jokes?
It's an interesting flashpoint, I think: the point at which a people's culture and the system whereby someone else can actually own that culture, meet.
It's a point that the limited times of the early copyright laws directly addressed, and which has repeatedly been swept away by the rich, the greedy and the powerful, for their own mean and selfish ends.
> Another politician calling for action in places without even thinking.
Oh, he's thinking - about how scoring a cheap point by making himself look 'tough' on people percievable as wrongdoers, will score him political points with an "Election Day drawing near".
That's a politician's priority - exploiting the uninformed electorate by pushing buttons regardless of the truth.
Politics is about number one, everything else is by the by.
I'm afraid not. Haven't you ever noticed the blurb included on DVDs and videos saying that public performance and unauthorised lending is prohibited? Public performance is certainly not distribution, it's just viewing the media with a few more associates than might otherwise be the case. Likewise, 'lending' - it's not 'distribution' in the same way that re-selling isn't - it's making use of a legally purchased copy, without duplication.
You're onto a loser whenever anyone says copyright isn't about this or is about that - copyright is a monstrous beast! Born as an evil monopolistic pact, later tamed with noble intentions and a limited lifespan, it threw off its bindings, growing and mutating into something that's about whatever the large, rich powerful copyright cartels want, through an endless series of modifications, grafts, bastardisations and revisions.
And this will continue until politicians stop screwing everyone for the sefish interests of a few powerful people.
One might, but in the UK, councils began charging businesses for the depositing of commercial waste in land-fill sites, a few years ago.
The result has been an explosion in the cases of fly-tipping: innocent land-owners - those who own a piece of open land - and it can be anything from a building site to grassland to a carpark - have refuse tipped on their land, and then face a huge bill to clear up the rubbish. If the landowner fails to clear it up, the council can, and does, apply a court order forcing them to clear it up, at their own cost - and if they fail to do so, the council will clear it up themselves and send the land-owner the bill!
In some cases, fly-tipping will even occur on land that is supposedly secure - fenced off - and the fly-tippers will even cut through padlocks to open gates to land where they can offload their waste.
The reason for this is that it's very lucrative to the fly-tippers - who undercut the council's charges (and don't generally care about the exact nature of the rubbish - hazardous chemicals, medical waste, etc.) and very good business sense for the businesses who use fly-tippers.
Charging people for the disposal of waste discourages them from using the service and leads people to seek other cheaper or no-cost ways of ridding themselves of their rubbish.
If the scheme outlined in the news-story is implemented, domestic waste will join the massive problem that commercial waste fly-tipping is causing here in the UK. Neighbour's bins will be used, public areas, parks, skips, anything to get out of paying.
The solution? For commercial waste - slap a blanket charge on every business that is likely to use the service that they pay along with their rates/taxes, and can't get out of - it becomes pointless for them to avoid using the official land-fill. For residential waste - stick with the system we have now - a service charge via the grossly unfair and unjust council tax.
-Blue