The body is really good and getting rid of excess water. Aspartame and its constituents, not so much.
Aspartame is broken down into three components in the blood stream: Phenylalanine, Aspartic Acid, and methanol. Phenylalanine enters the brain, and it can build up there. Some people have a reduced capacity for metabolizing Phenylalanine and are at increased risk of harmful side effects (headaches, depression, and schizophrenia). Aspartic Acid is similar to MSG, and also builds up in the blood stream over time. It's considered an excitotoxin and can cause problems in the high amounts than can result from common consumption of soda with aspertame.
Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde. Both of these products are toxic and symptoms of poisoning include headaches and nausea. Methanol poisoning can also result in retinal damage leading to vision problems including blurring and blindness. In addition, formaldehyde is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. These severe effects of methanol poisoning were seen in a study of the effects of aspartame on humans.
So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?
Well, he's right. The commonality here being what the pharmaceutical companies want. If big pharma wants to sell something, the FDA says it's safe. If big pharma wants something off the market, the FDA says it's dangerous and needs regulations so strict it's effectively a ban.
If you want to vaporize it, just throw the leaves into hot water.
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations. And the consequence of course will be more people going back to smoking and dying at a higher rate. I'd say "unintended" but I'm not convinced that's true, considering how the pharmaceutical companies control the FDA so fully. They are also the ones funding these hit piece "studies" of e-cigs - they want them gone so they get people back to Chantix and patches, even if they are failing to help people quit.
If critical thinking is the problem, every H1B I've had the displeasure of working with is no answer.
The vast majority I've met are no better than a just-out-of school coder with an associates degree. I've found code they've written that was obviously directly copy-and-pasted from something they found on a Google search, without even understanding how it worked. Same thing with "documentation" they've written.
The government shouldn't artificially restrict the number of tech people but neither should it artificially increase it via the H1B program.
The H1B program does not "artificially increase" the supply. It artificially restricts it. There are a limited number of H1B quotas. The "free market" solution would be unrestricted movement of labor, which would almost certainly result in far more techie immigrants.
Well there's the free market, and then there's the free market. International trade is typically not free without serious negotiation between countries to create it. The fact of the matter is, a free market only exists where all players are subject to the same rules. That is not the case between countries, which compete with each other to produce a trade advantage.
Even if you have both free-flowing goods and free-flowing labor you still do not have a free market, only one distorted by disparate regulation, housing and food costs, transportation of both goods and labor, as well as disparate rules for employers and employees. Even the EU, which has acted as a single economic system for a long time, was never able to achieve a leveled field with regard to cost of living, wages, and manufacturing costs. The differences are stark between Mexico and California, for instance. Even if you could level the cost of construction material and labor across the two, you would find that California inflates the cost of housing significantly due to building codes, land use regulations, safety regulations for workers, permitting requirements and costs, etc., all of which are a tiny fraction or non-existent in Mexico.
So there is no such thing as a "free market" for labor when you're opening the border for immigrant labor. Often you'll find that the immigrant laborer is sending a significant portion of their salary back to their home country where it will go a lot further supporting his family, which puts the local worker at a disadvantage since he is spending more to support his family in the local area.
In fact the ultimate goal is much more insidious. Currently, the global median household income is at $9,733, and the goal is to level wages in ALL countries to the same place. Ultimately, some country's income will rise (where the multinational corporations are building factories and offices right now), but in most countries of the West is must be significantly be reduced. Note that's household income, which in many cases is two earners per household.
Workers wages are, in fact, the ONLY commodity price that is being depressed right now. All others (food, energy, housing, etc.) is on the rise. You can argue by how much by citing ShadowStats vs. the US BLS, but you still see the same trend.
Interesting the globalist party (a.k.a. the Democrats) continue to push this agenda. The symbolism during the convention was really in-your-face. More bridges, less borders, more flow, faster equalization of wages. While the elites continue to amass wealth and ignore countries (the wealthy don't NEED countries - their wealth provides them ultimate mobility, influence, and protection).
They don't really need the middle class at all. Sure, they are using them right now as a cash cow to keep the funds flowing, but ultimately they are more trouble than they are worth. Better to reduce them to nothing and get as quickly as possible to a 2-class system. With the cost of living increasing and wages being "globally equalized" as quickly as possible, soon that's what they will have. The important thing to do now is to demonize the nationalists as racist, xenophobic, uneducated neanderthals clinging to sky-fairy religions, to avoid things like voting for a Brexit and electing nationalists like Trump.
Can't you just say one or a combination of the following:
a) You don't remember what finger you used
b) You used someone else's finger
c) Let them "have" your hand but use the wrong fingers or make them guess what finger is correct
d) Use the correct finger but do it incorrectly such that the device won't unlock
e) say you never properly set a fingerprint id
f) Or, and this is actually true for me, I pick my fingers and the fingerprint id doesn't work because my prints are not exactly the same for very long (and they were in a not-natural state when the passcode was set so it would be impossible to compel me to not pick at my fingers to gain access)
Or in other words - how can a court compel this when the court doesn't even know what they are compelling. Seems to me the easiest thing to do is say you never properly authenticated any of your fingers and thus are unable to comply. If they force you to try all your fingers - just do it wrong. We all know how finicky these devices are and it would seem easy to purposely incorrectly authenticate or damage your print enough to cause a failure.
a) Could get you charged for lying to investigators, which is a crime
b) See a
c) Or just ask "which finger" - They have a 50% chance of selecting the right one before the iPhone reverts to passwords
d) They'll just keep trying, but again only get 5 tries
e) See a
f) This is the best advice - use a password, not your fingerprint.
There's a youtube video of a girl trying to get into her boyfriends phone while he's asleep. She tries one hand, then the other, then other fingers, and finally gives up and leaves. The guy then wakes up, takes off his shoe and unlocks his phone with his toe. Hilarious!
So just use your toe. They'll never figure that one out.
In Europe, we understand that, in this context, a fingerprint is equivalent to a password and deserves to be protected as such. You dumb fat Americans really should extend the same protections to fingerprints in this context.
Europeans don't know the difference between something you have and something you know. No wonder Great Britain wants out.
your fingerprints aren't a testimony against yourself. Read the damn thing. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Your fingerprints absolutely can be evidence against you. That's not even a question. The police have a long established right to take your fingerprints when you are arrested and to compare them with gathered evidence.
That said I have a hard time reconciling this with the right against self incrimination in the Constitution. In principle I feel a biometric pass code should be legally no different than a memorized one. Either way you are being forced to potentially incriminate yourself. But I suspect that the legal system will rule that they are different and so if you want your phone to be secure against search and seizure you must avoid biometric pass codes unfortunately. The problem here is that they are not comparing your fingerprints against evidence they have found. They are in effect forcing you to open a lock on their behalf. I don't have a problem with them having the right to search but I don't see why the target of the investigation should be forced to aid in that search. If they can break down a door to do a search (with a warrant) then have that right but I don't see why I should have to hand over the key to the house so to speak.
Courts have long held that you are required (once a proper warrant has been issued) to provide keys to any lock (such as a safe) that is the subject of search or evidence. However, you cannot be compelled to provide the combination of a safe that is secured that way. So they're using the same principle. Your fingerprint is something that you HAVE, so you can be required to provide it. A combination or password is something that you KNOW, and you're allowed to keep your mental secrets secret.
Don't break the law. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed.
Unpossible. There are so many laws that can be interpreted in so many ways, if an agent wants to pin something on you, they WILL find something. It has been widely reported that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, without even knowing it.
If you routinely destroy evidence to avoid implicating yourself in a crime, I think the intent is pretty clear.
But that's perfectly legal. That is, you're destroying documents or files (something routinely done everywhere, all the time), which is not currently "evidence". If you think you're under investigation, or have some reason to believe you might be investigated, then you are not allowed to destroy or tamper with any evidence. But, if you're in the habit of routinely wiping your devices and files, it would be difficult or impossible to prove that in some specific incident you knowingly did it to tamper with evidence.
It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".
Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci... [webmd.com]
I suggest you Google about webmd and their funding (big pharma) and propaganda (promotions from grants). WebMD is paid by the FDA, which receives its funding from big pharma and, yes, the corporate farming lobby. So by posting propaganda from WebMD, you're supporting MY argument, not your own.
The article you linked was not a study, did not link to any study. It was a (poorly done) article about a report prepared for politicians (who, of course, have an agenda). There is no link to the report, no reference to the "81 studies" that the "researchers" selected to support their position (a conclusion that they were paid to support). No science there at all.
All the actual peer-reviewed articles you posted referred to raw-milk cheese, and mostly specific anecdotes of specific outbreaks, and primarily outside the US. So, pretty irrelevant, especially considering that any process where you INTENTIONALLY GROW BACTERIA can certainly go wrong in many ways.
I have drank raw milk since 2011, and it has kept me strong and healthy.
OK. You don't know that. I appreciate your fetish for fucked up smelling gloopy milk, which of course you're welcome to - but that's the bit that you seriously do not know.
You should try it some time. If you're used to the watery, ultra pasteurized, hormone-laden milk from factory cows caged and injected with chemicals and bacteria, you may not know what milk is really supposed to taste like. It's really very delicious, smells wonderful, and is actually creamy, not gloopy.
There's absolutely no evidence for that. In fact incidents of food-borne illness are significantly higher for practitioners of the new-age "raw milk" psycho-babble.
Thanks for repeating our propaganda. We'd send you a check for your support, but we sent all our money to the FDA and the former FDA administrators that now have positions on our board.
That's right. Raw, or unpasteurized milk, is much better. It builds a strong healthy body.
I drank it for a year or two, as a member of a "cow share" cooperative. I didn't re-up the last time, so I don't drink it any more.
The next best thing is the pasture-fed "organic" (hormone free) milk from the grocery store. Interestingly, that stuff normally comes "Ultrapasturized", and the shelf life on it is at least 4-5 weeks. So I'm not sure what advantage this process brings.
On the flip side, it was government intervention that forced the automobile manufacturers to play nice with the independent repair shops and after market parts manufacturers. Even the fact that my OBD II reader will mostly work on most any (sold in N. American, not sure about other markets) car built from the mid '90's on is due to government intervention.
Only so they could monitor the mandated emissions controls that manufacturers were required to add to cars in the first place. It had nothing to do with wanting to help you diagnose your car - just the emissions controls. So it was a solution to help fix something that was only broken because of the initial government mandate. Still, they did get that "solution" right. Gotta give them credit for that, especially since most of the "solutions" government creates cause more problems than the ones they are intended to resolve.
So you're in favor of a system without copyright laws?
I said nothing about what I'm "in favor" of or not. I expressed no opinion, only facts.
However, since you asked, I'll expound on what (in my opinion) I see as how copyright can be used productively, in the modern age, and actually be used for it's purpose as stated in the Constitution (that is, "... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"). First, it should be significantly shorter. Lifetime of the author is a new innovation, and quite long enough. +70 years is far too long. 95 years for works-for-hire seems too long as well. 50 years seems more than reasonable. Some would want more, some less. The length is debatable, and, more importantly should be debated
Are there still countries where foreign copyrights are not honored at all? The US was one of those countries when it was first formed, but of course it no longer is. What would it be like if we abandoned copyright completely? Of course, there are many that claim that no books or music or stories or art would be created. That's a bogus argument. Artists will always create what they want - they did long before "copyright" was invented. They had patrons that sponsored their work (similar to the way research grants support much of pure science today).
Another idea would be to only allow individuals to be granted copyrights, but not corporations or "works for hire". That would probably eliminate most of the big movies and TV shows created by Hollywood and media conglomerates. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but it would certainly create a major backlash, as well as chaos in multiple financial markets (what else does the US export these days??).
What we currently have is a lot of laws on top of copyright, intended to enforce the copyright rules for large / wealthy copyright holders. Let's be clear: The DMCA really only works well for large / wealth copyright holders, mostly corporations. There are multiple problems with this. Note, to start with, that copyright infringement is not and never has been a crime. It's a tort. Meaning, if someone wants to protect their copyright, they must file suit in civil court to do so. There is no criminal court, there are no law enforcement involved, there is no criminal investigation. What the DMCA and other recent "innovations" in copyright enforcement has done is to shift the burden of enforcement from the beneficiaries of copyright to the public (through taxation and use of law enforcement resources). That significantly shifts the costs and the power dynamic of the entire system. The FBI does NOT pursue cases of infringement for Joe J. Writer, who sells his novel online but keeps seeing people sharing his work without his permission. But these days the DO pursue cases for Disney and Viacom for people doing the exact same thing for their work. And this in a system where Joe J. Writer cannot afford his own investigators and lawyers to pursue lawsuits, but Disney and Viacom absolutely CAN.
I don't have any specific recommendations on whether a system without copyright laws can work. But I do know that the current copyright laws, and all the other laws and ways they are currently enforced, is not working.
Similar to a car or computer, ownership of equipment does not include the right to copy, modify, or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment. A purchaser may own a book, but he/she does not have a right to copy the book, to modify the book, or to distribute unauthorized copies to others.
[Emphasis mine]. This is BS. John Deere is lying to their dealers by sending a letter like this. When you own a book, you can absolutely modify it all you want. You can highlight stuff, black stuff out, rip out pages, re-write passages and stuff the new pages in there. That's all part of First Sale doctrine. Copyright does NOT prevent you from doing those things, but John Deere is claiming it does (as far as their tractor software goes).
What they are relying on (solely) is the DMCA, which bans access to the software (with ANY "protection").
It is exactly unfettered capitalism. It is a known and predictable consequence of it. Stop being an apologist just because your precious system is being shown to be as full of flaws as thinking people have always known it to be.
Every system people create is full of flaws, as are the people that created it. It's still the best one available for producing prosperity among the most number of people. In this case, government regulation has created a protectionist system for a rent-seeking corporation. That's fixable, and the best way is less government intervention, not more.
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers?
Because what we have in this case isn't unfettered at all. The fetter in this case is Copyright + DMCA - government-implemented mandates that provide protection to corporations from... unfettered capitalism (that is, from a system in which they would have to compete).
John Deere may be capitalists, but the government has provided them an advantage in the market, an unfair advantage to individuals and small businesses that want to compete to repair tractors. They can bring the full might of the government (and its monopoly on violence to enforce rules) on anyone that tries to compete with them in that space.
It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
Nope. It's government regulation. Without that, it would be no time before some enterprising person / company reverse-engineer the diagnostics / control system / whatever in the Deere trackers and started offering repair services, just like in the GP's example. How you don't see that can only be attributed to myopia.
Slashdot Mirror
The body is really good and getting rid of excess water. Aspartame and its constituents, not so much.
Aspartame is broken down into three components in the blood stream: Phenylalanine, Aspartic Acid, and methanol. Phenylalanine enters the brain, and it can build up there. Some people have a reduced capacity for metabolizing Phenylalanine and are at increased risk of harmful side effects (headaches, depression, and schizophrenia). Aspartic Acid is similar to MSG, and also builds up in the blood stream over time. It's considered an excitotoxin and can cause problems in the high amounts than can result from common consumption of soda with aspertame.
Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde. Both of these products are toxic and symptoms of poisoning include headaches and nausea. Methanol poisoning can also result in retinal damage leading to vision problems including blurring and blindness. In addition, formaldehyde is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. These severe effects of methanol poisoning were seen in a study of the effects of aspartame on humans.
So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?
Well, he's right. The commonality here being what the pharmaceutical companies want. If big pharma wants to sell something, the FDA says it's safe. If big pharma wants something off the market, the FDA says it's dangerous and needs regulations so strict it's effectively a ban.
If you want to vaporize it, just throw the leaves into hot water.
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations. And the consequence of course will be more people going back to smoking and dying at a higher rate. I'd say "unintended" but I'm not convinced that's true, considering how the pharmaceutical companies control the FDA so fully. They are also the ones funding these hit piece "studies" of e-cigs - they want them gone so they get people back to Chantix and patches, even if they are failing to help people quit.
If critical thinking is the problem, every H1B I've had the displeasure of working with is no answer.
The vast majority I've met are no better than a just-out-of school coder with an associates degree. I've found code they've written that was obviously directly copy-and-pasted from something they found on a Google search, without even understanding how it worked. Same thing with "documentation" they've written.
The government shouldn't artificially restrict the number of tech people but neither should it artificially increase it via the H1B program.
The H1B program does not "artificially increase" the supply. It artificially restricts it. There are a limited number of H1B quotas. The "free market" solution would be unrestricted movement of labor, which would almost certainly result in far more techie immigrants.
Well there's the free market, and then there's the free market. International trade is typically not free without serious negotiation between countries to create it. The fact of the matter is, a free market only exists where all players are subject to the same rules. That is not the case between countries, which compete with each other to produce a trade advantage.
Even if you have both free-flowing goods and free-flowing labor you still do not have a free market, only one distorted by disparate regulation, housing and food costs, transportation of both goods and labor, as well as disparate rules for employers and employees. Even the EU, which has acted as a single economic system for a long time, was never able to achieve a leveled field with regard to cost of living, wages, and manufacturing costs. The differences are stark between Mexico and California, for instance. Even if you could level the cost of construction material and labor across the two, you would find that California inflates the cost of housing significantly due to building codes, land use regulations, safety regulations for workers, permitting requirements and costs, etc., all of which are a tiny fraction or non-existent in Mexico.
So there is no such thing as a "free market" for labor when you're opening the border for immigrant labor. Often you'll find that the immigrant laborer is sending a significant portion of their salary back to their home country where it will go a lot further supporting his family, which puts the local worker at a disadvantage since he is spending more to support his family in the local area.
You are exactly right - MOD PARENT UP.
In fact the ultimate goal is much more insidious. Currently, the global median household income is at $9,733, and the goal is to level wages in ALL countries to the same place. Ultimately, some country's income will rise (where the multinational corporations are building factories and offices right now), but in most countries of the West is must be significantly be reduced. Note that's household income, which in many cases is two earners per household.
Workers wages are, in fact, the ONLY commodity price that is being depressed right now. All others (food, energy, housing, etc.) is on the rise. You can argue by how much by citing ShadowStats vs. the US BLS, but you still see the same trend.
Interesting the globalist party (a.k.a. the Democrats) continue to push this agenda. The symbolism during the convention was really in-your-face. More bridges, less borders, more flow, faster equalization of wages. While the elites continue to amass wealth and ignore countries (the wealthy don't NEED countries - their wealth provides them ultimate mobility, influence, and protection).
They don't really need the middle class at all. Sure, they are using them right now as a cash cow to keep the funds flowing, but ultimately they are more trouble than they are worth. Better to reduce them to nothing and get as quickly as possible to a 2-class system. With the cost of living increasing and wages being "globally equalized" as quickly as possible, soon that's what they will have. The important thing to do now is to demonize the nationalists as racist, xenophobic, uneducated neanderthals clinging to sky-fairy religions, to avoid things like voting for a Brexit and electing nationalists like Trump.
You're citing government actions, not the market
The government spends money, therefore the government is part of the market.
Definitely time to short THAT stock, then!
Can't you just say one or a combination of the following:
a) You don't remember what finger you used b) You used someone else's finger c) Let them "have" your hand but use the wrong fingers or make them guess what finger is correct d) Use the correct finger but do it incorrectly such that the device won't unlock e) say you never properly set a fingerprint id f) Or, and this is actually true for me, I pick my fingers and the fingerprint id doesn't work because my prints are not exactly the same for very long (and they were in a not-natural state when the passcode was set so it would be impossible to compel me to not pick at my fingers to gain access)
Or in other words - how can a court compel this when the court doesn't even know what they are compelling. Seems to me the easiest thing to do is say you never properly authenticated any of your fingers and thus are unable to comply. If they force you to try all your fingers - just do it wrong. We all know how finicky these devices are and it would seem easy to purposely incorrectly authenticate or damage your print enough to cause a failure.
There's a youtube video of a girl trying to get into her boyfriends phone while he's asleep. She tries one hand, then the other, then other fingers, and finally gives up and leaves. The guy then wakes up, takes off his shoe and unlocks his phone with his toe. Hilarious!
So just use your toe. They'll never figure that one out.
In Europe, we understand that, in this context, a fingerprint is equivalent to a password and deserves to be protected as such. You dumb fat Americans really should extend the same protections to fingerprints in this context.
Europeans don't know the difference between something you have and something you know. No wonder Great Britain wants out.
your fingerprints aren't a testimony against yourself. Read the damn thing. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Your fingerprints absolutely can be evidence against you. That's not even a question. The police have a long established right to take your fingerprints when you are arrested and to compare them with gathered evidence.
That said I have a hard time reconciling this with the right against self incrimination in the Constitution. In principle I feel a biometric pass code should be legally no different than a memorized one. Either way you are being forced to potentially incriminate yourself. But I suspect that the legal system will rule that they are different and so if you want your phone to be secure against search and seizure you must avoid biometric pass codes unfortunately. The problem here is that they are not comparing your fingerprints against evidence they have found. They are in effect forcing you to open a lock on their behalf. I don't have a problem with them having the right to search but I don't see why the target of the investigation should be forced to aid in that search. If they can break down a door to do a search (with a warrant) then have that right but I don't see why I should have to hand over the key to the house so to speak.
Courts have long held that you are required (once a proper warrant has been issued) to provide keys to any lock (such as a safe) that is the subject of search or evidence. However, you cannot be compelled to provide the combination of a safe that is secured that way. So they're using the same principle. Your fingerprint is something that you HAVE, so you can be required to provide it. A combination or password is something that you KNOW, and you're allowed to keep your mental secrets secret.
Don't break the law. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed.
Unpossible. There are so many laws that can be interpreted in so many ways, if an agent wants to pin something on you, they WILL find something. It has been widely reported that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, without even knowing it.
If you routinely destroy evidence to avoid implicating yourself in a crime, I think the intent is pretty clear.
But that's perfectly legal. That is, you're destroying documents or files (something routinely done everywhere, all the time), which is not currently "evidence". If you think you're under investigation, or have some reason to believe you might be investigated, then you are not allowed to destroy or tamper with any evidence. But, if you're in the habit of routinely wiping your devices and files, it would be difficult or impossible to prove that in some specific incident you knowingly did it to tamper with evidence.
So routinely wiping your data is a good strategy.
Thanks, Obama!
You're clearly a sick, sick man, and should seek professional psychiatric help as soon as possible.
I prefer the term "crackpot". Thank you very much, sir.
It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk". Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk: - http://www.webmd.com/food-reci... [webmd.com]
I suggest you Google about webmd and their funding (big pharma) and propaganda (promotions from grants). WebMD is paid by the FDA, which receives its funding from big pharma and, yes, the corporate farming lobby. So by posting propaganda from WebMD, you're supporting MY argument, not your own.
The article you linked was not a study, did not link to any study. It was a (poorly done) article about a report prepared for politicians (who, of course, have an agenda). There is no link to the report, no reference to the "81 studies" that the "researchers" selected to support their position (a conclusion that they were paid to support). No science there at all.
All the actual peer-reviewed articles you posted referred to raw-milk cheese, and mostly specific anecdotes of specific outbreaks, and primarily outside the US. So, pretty irrelevant, especially considering that any process where you INTENTIONALLY GROW BACTERIA can certainly go wrong in many ways.
I have drank raw milk since 2011, and it has kept me strong and healthy.
OK. You don't know that. I appreciate your fetish for fucked up smelling gloopy milk, which of course you're welcome to - but that's the bit that you seriously do not know.
You should try it some time. If you're used to the watery, ultra pasteurized, hormone-laden milk from factory cows caged and injected with chemicals and bacteria, you may not know what milk is really supposed to taste like. It's really very delicious, smells wonderful, and is actually creamy, not gloopy.
This.
There's absolutely no evidence for that. In fact incidents of food-borne illness are significantly higher for practitioners of the new-age "raw milk" psycho-babble.
Thanks for repeating our propaganda. We'd send you a check for your support, but we sent all our money to the FDA and the former FDA administrators that now have positions on our board.
--- Signed, The Corporate Dairy Council
That's right. Raw, or unpasteurized milk, is much better. It builds a strong healthy body.
I drank it for a year or two, as a member of a "cow share" cooperative. I didn't re-up the last time, so I don't drink it any more.
The next best thing is the pasture-fed "organic" (hormone free) milk from the grocery store. Interestingly, that stuff normally comes "Ultrapasturized", and the shelf life on it is at least 4-5 weeks. So I'm not sure what advantage this process brings.
On the flip side, it was government intervention that forced the automobile manufacturers to play nice with the independent repair shops and after market parts manufacturers. Even the fact that my OBD II reader will mostly work on most any (sold in N. American, not sure about other markets) car built from the mid '90's on is due to government intervention.
Only so they could monitor the mandated emissions controls that manufacturers were required to add to cars in the first place. It had nothing to do with wanting to help you diagnose your car - just the emissions controls. So it was a solution to help fix something that was only broken because of the initial government mandate. Still, they did get that "solution" right. Gotta give them credit for that, especially since most of the "solutions" government creates cause more problems than the ones they are intended to resolve.
So you're in favor of a system without copyright laws?
I said nothing about what I'm "in favor" of or not. I expressed no opinion, only facts.
However, since you asked, I'll expound on what (in my opinion) I see as how copyright can be used productively, in the modern age, and actually be used for it's purpose as stated in the Constitution (that is, "... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"). First, it should be significantly shorter. Lifetime of the author is a new innovation, and quite long enough. +70 years is far too long. 95 years for works-for-hire seems too long as well. 50 years seems more than reasonable. Some would want more, some less. The length is debatable, and, more importantly should be debated
Are there still countries where foreign copyrights are not honored at all? The US was one of those countries when it was first formed, but of course it no longer is. What would it be like if we abandoned copyright completely? Of course, there are many that claim that no books or music or stories or art would be created. That's a bogus argument. Artists will always create what they want - they did long before "copyright" was invented. They had patrons that sponsored their work (similar to the way research grants support much of pure science today).
Another idea would be to only allow individuals to be granted copyrights, but not corporations or "works for hire". That would probably eliminate most of the big movies and TV shows created by Hollywood and media conglomerates. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but it would certainly create a major backlash, as well as chaos in multiple financial markets (what else does the US export these days??).
What we currently have is a lot of laws on top of copyright, intended to enforce the copyright rules for large / wealthy copyright holders. Let's be clear: The DMCA really only works well for large / wealth copyright holders, mostly corporations. There are multiple problems with this. Note, to start with, that copyright infringement is not and never has been a crime. It's a tort. Meaning, if someone wants to protect their copyright, they must file suit in civil court to do so. There is no criminal court, there are no law enforcement involved, there is no criminal investigation. What the DMCA and other recent "innovations" in copyright enforcement has done is to shift the burden of enforcement from the beneficiaries of copyright to the public (through taxation and use of law enforcement resources). That significantly shifts the costs and the power dynamic of the entire system. The FBI does NOT pursue cases of infringement for Joe J. Writer, who sells his novel online but keeps seeing people sharing his work without his permission. But these days the DO pursue cases for Disney and Viacom for people doing the exact same thing for their work. And this in a system where Joe J. Writer cannot afford his own investigators and lawyers to pursue lawsuits, but Disney and Viacom absolutely CAN.
I don't have any specific recommendations on whether a system without copyright laws can work. But I do know that the current copyright laws, and all the other laws and ways they are currently enforced, is not working.
Does that answer your question?
FTFA:
[Emphasis mine]. This is BS. John Deere is lying to their dealers by sending a letter like this. When you own a book, you can absolutely modify it all you want. You can highlight stuff, black stuff out, rip out pages, re-write passages and stuff the new pages in there. That's all part of First Sale doctrine. Copyright does NOT prevent you from doing those things, but John Deere is claiming it does (as far as their tractor software goes).
What they are relying on (solely) is the DMCA, which bans access to the software (with ANY "protection").
It is exactly unfettered capitalism. It is a known and predictable consequence of it. Stop being an apologist just because your precious system is being shown to be as full of flaws as thinking people have always known it to be.
Every system people create is full of flaws, as are the people that created it. It's still the best one available for producing prosperity among the most number of people. In this case, government regulation has created a protectionist system for a rent-seeking corporation. That's fixable, and the best way is less government intervention, not more.
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers?
Because what we have in this case isn't unfettered at all. The fetter in this case is Copyright + DMCA - government-implemented mandates that provide protection to corporations from ... unfettered capitalism (that is, from a system in which they would have to compete).
John Deere may be capitalists, but the government has provided them an advantage in the market, an unfair advantage to individuals and small businesses that want to compete to repair tractors. They can bring the full might of the government (and its monopoly on violence to enforce rules) on anyone that tries to compete with them in that space.
It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
Nope. It's government regulation. Without that, it would be no time before some enterprising person / company reverse-engineer the diagnostics / control system / whatever in the Deere trackers and started offering repair services, just like in the GP's example. How you don't see that can only be attributed to myopia.
Inconvenient Truth. As usual, marked "Troll" by the socialist hive mind that is the /. modders.