The correct tone for a creator to have when discussing the continuation of copyright is that of a salesman attempting to pitch the advantages. Not one of moral outrage.
The correct approach is to have a clear idea as to precisely what it is that you as a creator are hoping to get by perpetuating copyright. Security, reputation, etc.
Then you should use a little humility and be ready to consider that there might be ways you could get what you want through different means that have less social cost than a blanket copyright enforcement.
There is a vast amount of administrative and executive waste in the current scheme. It forces you to compete against the dead.
If you are actually a creator, there is the opportunity for more reward waiting for you if copyright is devalued, because all the expenditures that are budgeted towards paying media groups would then be available to spend on custom work.
I would imagine that we could make use of electromagnetic acceleration of payload on quite a lot of cargo, but there would be more costs and inconvenience involved in packaging some cargo than others.
It wouldn't accelerate suddenly like a bullet because it's not being driven by detonation, but rather being accelerated as it moves out the barrel as it passes each electromagnet.
But raw minerals that are scarce in space, manufactured parts that rely on the presence of gravity to construct efficiently, these types of things would be ideal.
No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having enough people on our side.
Which gets to the really relevant question. What is in it for the rest of us if we enforce the arbitrary copying rules that you like so much, and are we REALLY on your side at all, or have we just not quite woken up enough to realize that we have a choice about it.
Control is controlled by the copyright owners. They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material.
I own this world. I put a flag in my backyard. Now I have the moral right to control access to it. I don't like what you're saying to people. Get off my planet.
There is a good article presenting the contraindications against rockets and a number of currently being investigated alternatives (including the beanstalk) here:
Another concept mentioned in the article is something called a "Space Pier", which I've always believed will eventually become the standard for shipping freight that can handle very sudden accelerations.
When I was a kid, I conceived it as a coilgun embedded in a mountain range with a line of superconductive electromagnets that would fire things into space like a bullet, but this guy J. Storrs Hall, works on the CRN Global Task Force, he proposes a 100km tall structure built on legs with an electromagnetic linear accelerator on top. Same basic concept, and I think it will eventually be demonstrated to be optimal for the appropriate cargo.
The White Knight drops SpaceShipOne when they reached an altitude of about 50,000 feet (15 kilometers), and it takes 30 or 40 minutes for them to reach this altitude. Along the way they levelled out for some time while they checked all of the onboard systems.
PHOTOS
As they spiralled higher above the desert, it became harder to even see where they were; eventually, though, they got high enough for contrails to start forming. Finally, around 7:50AM and 47,000 feet (14,250 meters) the White Knight released SpaceShipOne, which glided for about 10 seconds then lit its rocket engine.
So yes, they use a rocket in the second stage, but describing it as a "mobile launch platform" makes it sound like an aircraft carrier. They used conventional lift to reach almost to the top of the stratosphere before firing off the rocket.
Are you saying that you think that the impact of friction involved in ploughing through the atmosphere to achieve that speed is irrelevant?
Are you saying that the fuel you save utilizing conventional lift to reach the top of the atmosphere instead of using rockets is irrelevant?
Oh, are you saying that gravitational pull at ground level is the same as it is in the high atmosphere?
You think throwing out Newtons Second Law of Motion and swearing a lot makes you sound smart buddy? It doesn't. You sound like an idiot.
The most fuel is consumed attempting to overcome the higher gravity at earths surface, which is 9.78 meters per second per second down near the equator and drops in a non-linear fashion with distance, and ploughing through the earths atmosphere, which generates drag and heat. Which also causes the explosions that plague rockets.
The way of the future is exactly as I have described it to you. It's so obvious that everyone in the private sector who is attempting to enter the arena of space flight has chosen this approach, including SpaceShipOne, which is functionally demonstrating the concept.
Next, we will see space assembled ships that cannot and will never fly within an atmosphere or be forced to bear their own weight, which will resemble nothing ever built before.
Why don't you try going to high school in a country with an education system next time.
You're trying to manipulate things into a word-game style victory that changes nothing about the issue at hand.
The issue at hand isn't that variation in genetic material is a naturally occurring thing. Everyone knows that mutations exist.
The difference is that a mutation needs to fight from the bottom and displace everything, and it needs to do it from a starting position in which it is the only one of its kind in existence.
What Monsanto does in a lab is create sterile incubators for their creations and culture them in numbers sufficient to carpet the earth, and releases them out into the wild.
It's TOTALLY fucking different.
There is no naturally occurring example of what Monsanto does that you can point at and say "There, see, it happened over there." None whatsoever.
Which means that there isn't any data upon which to base a conclusion, but only specultation.
Our great-grandchildren will be the ones equipped to judge the effect of what was done to us, after collecting a few generations of medical data. Not us. We aren't equipped.
Rockets are the most brain dead way to send things into space, it ought to be illegal.
You want a Hollywood version of how space travel ought to be done, take a look at the Marvel movie The Hulk. The scene where the pilot flies right up to the edge of the atmosphere, and a relatively slightest nudge from the Hulk pushes the plane into space.
Imagine the same scenario, except with the plane supplying the nudge, and another spacecraft waiting outside the atmosphere to receive the package that is hurled across the edge of the atmosphere into space.
That's how we should be doing space travel. Large planes with huge wingspans that generate enormous lift and act as a high orbit launch platform.
For such a smart bunch of people, NASA sure have been taking a stupid, dangerous and wasteful approach to space travel all these decades. I think it's driven by shady back room deals with the fuel industry, personally.
If any college students get the urge to go shoot the hell out of some people and put a gun in their mouth, they should go visit Monsanto and do us all a solid on their way out.
Take a look at this line in the code:// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
They "own all the code" MY ASS. Perhaps they retained the services of Mindpalette to design their website or their own developers used some of their code, but this statement indicated to me that they DO NOT own at least a good chunk of the JavaScript in this file. Have they done their "due diligence" concerning their IP? Are the (retarded) terms-of-service on this web page compatible with the terms of service agreed to by Mr. Baldwin? I am the author of some GPLed scripts myself, and if I discovered they were used on this site I would take issue and even consider legal action!
It's very funny. The acts of paying for an internet connection and a computer, setting up a server and a domain name, and put these html pages unsecured upon that server is an act of publication. That interpretation is why Kazaa lady got nailed. The thing being published is not a browsing experience, it is a text file. I can use any tool I wish to view and interpret that text file, be it one I downloaded or one I wrote myself.
Unless they have secured the pages against free access and collected an agreement to terms of use prior to transmitting this text file, they can not retroactively enforce them. This means they cannot enforce that I use any particular viewing medium for the text.
However, what they have done is materially represented in the same site that they own the technology and the copyrights as a corporation, and also that the copyrights are some individuals property.
If it isn't fraudulent on the basis that they use the obvious message to intimidate people via legal threats without basis in fact into not seeing the contradictory ownership message in the comments, it's most certainly too sloppy to be borne on the front page of a site run by Internet Lawyers.
I knew lawyers were scum, but I figured it would be necessary for them to be at least somewhat smarter to get in the door. Apparently not.
The point of the patents, from the perspective of one whose interests are US competitiveness, is to enforce them on other nations more than those other nations enforce them on you.
They're a 'smart' tax. If you want to act 'smart', you have to pay for permission, and it doesn't matter how unfair that is on the domestic level, as long as the rest of the world is either paying all their smart taxes your way or competing 'dumb', your nation will get richer by doing nothing.
Those responsible for the US economy don't want everyone freely sharing ideas and being as productive as they can be in an open fashion, because they've got a tiny population compared to the rest of the world, and most of them are elderly. They would quickly become irrelevant if that happened.
What they want is to have their part of their citizenry set up the paperwork to enforce the smart tax, and part maintaining the massive military dominance that perpetuates the system. Then they can just cruise and have those massive foreign populations take care of them.
Thus, the system is doing exactly what those at the helm want it to do.
If your agenda is to make statements as a unified body, you can't do that. It would be like if the US kicked everyone out of the UN except them, then claimed to have unanimous global support for their war of terror. It just doesn't work.
Someone needs to put a bullet in those people over at Microsoft.
Heh. One of my GFs clients constantly refers to something called "H-Tags". Any design update will be referred to in a very serious tone as "Fixing the H-Tags". I believe the people whose money she brings to us consider her very technically minded as she assures them that we can fix their H-Tags for them.
1) My site is just like everyone elses. I want it to be on top though. I need to figure out clever ways to make my site perfect for Google, then they will give me all the traffic.
2) My site is fucking amazing. I dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's, and it's just right. I told some people, and they told some people, and it's still growing. Those search engine guys sure are using a lot of traffic with their robots. They're lucky I let them spider my site, but it's an open Internet... I guess it comes with success.
Different people are after different goals, but I figure, it's not my responsibility to pay attention to Google and do their job for them. It's my responsibility to build something that is excellent and pays attention to the user.
If you build excellence, and Google doesn't find a way to index it, they become less relevant, not the other way around.
You can waste a lot of time that could have been better spent elsewhere trying to conform to other peoples idea of how to build for search engines and end up with a site that doesn't serve the user as well as it did before you started.
What needs to happen is for someone to stand up and say "Yes, this woman downloaded music. But it's your corrupt laws that are at fault, serving the interests of criminal racketeers and destroying lives, and we're going to put a stop to it."
Then millions of people need to follow them in stringing those responsible for this circus up by the neck.
You don't negotiate with racketeers and terrorists.
Heh. I got strip searched and turned away trying to hitchhike to the second woodstock from Canada. They made me take my pants off, and when I said "If you're going to search any more than this, I don't really need to come into your country" and he didn't laugh, I was pretty nervous. Just squeezed out my toothpaste tubes and cut up my bars of soap and whatnot and sent us home.
I felt the same way going to Australia when they asked if I had a criminal record. I said "Wow, do you still need a criminal record to get into Australia? I don't have one."
Australians generally have a good sense of humour, thankfully.
You can put up as many solar panels as you want, floating in space, aimed at the sun. No need to clutter up the landscape of earth. It scales up until the point you've got a Dyson Sphere,
Then you transmit the power from the small panels to an space station in a geostable orbit around earth.
Then you transmit the power from the space station to a matching ground installation on the earths equator.
Then you transmit the power from there around the earth using whatever method is best.
The strengths of such a system are that you can scale your solar collections out endlessly, eventually aiming to farm space for materials to build more instead of shipping them from earth, while having a single transmission line to earth for it all. No more need of terrestrial power generation.
This is the way towards a future of continued growth for the human race. All global efforts should be dedicated to the achievement of this goal.
I didn't say anything about infinite number of infinite universes. What I put forward was that the universe might be finite, and if the branching universe stuff weren't a load of bollocks, in a finite universe, the number of parallel universes would also be finite, it would imply that there is a set number of possibilities for the universe, a set number of permutations, and we're all moving from one place in the set to the next.
If something like this were true, a presumption that there is a higher level of existence than the universe within which our "soul" lives would be a necessity to any concept of "traveling" the space-time set, as opposed to simply "being of" the space-time set.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you're getting the picture.
The correct tone for a creator to have when discussing the continuation of copyright is that of a salesman attempting to pitch the advantages. Not one of moral outrage.
The correct approach is to have a clear idea as to precisely what it is that you as a creator are hoping to get by perpetuating copyright. Security, reputation, etc.
Then you should use a little humility and be ready to consider that there might be ways you could get what you want through different means that have less social cost than a blanket copyright enforcement.
There is a vast amount of administrative and executive waste in the current scheme. It forces you to compete against the dead.
If you are actually a creator, there is the opportunity for more reward waiting for you if copyright is devalued, because all the expenditures that are budgeted towards paying media groups would then be available to spend on custom work.
Think about it.
I would imagine that we could make use of electromagnetic acceleration of payload on quite a lot of cargo, but there would be more costs and inconvenience involved in packaging some cargo than others.
It wouldn't accelerate suddenly like a bullet because it's not being driven by detonation, but rather being accelerated as it moves out the barrel as it passes each electromagnet.
But raw minerals that are scarce in space, manufactured parts that rely on the presence of gravity to construct efficiently, these types of things would be ideal.
No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having enough people on our side.
Which gets to the really relevant question. What is in it for the rest of us if we enforce the arbitrary copying rules that you like so much, and are we REALLY on your side at all, or have we just not quite woken up enough to realize that we have a choice about it.
Control is controlled by the copyright owners. They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material.
I own this world. I put a flag in my backyard. Now I have the moral right to control access to it. I don't like what you're saying to people. Get off my planet.
What makes your statement more true than mine?
There is a good article presenting the contraindications against rockets and a number of currently being investigated alternatives (including the beanstalk) here:
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=178
Another concept mentioned in the article is something called a "Space Pier", which I've always believed will eventually become the standard for shipping freight that can handle very sudden accelerations.
When I was a kid, I conceived it as a coilgun embedded in a mountain range with a line of superconductive electromagnets that would fire things into space like a bullet, but this guy J. Storrs Hall, works on the CRN Global Task Force, he proposes a 100km tall structure built on legs with an electromagnetic linear accelerator on top. Same basic concept, and I think it will eventually be demonstrated to be optimal for the appropriate cargo.
Flat out wrong.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceShipOne2004/
From the article:
The White Knight drops SpaceShipOne when they reached an altitude of about 50,000 feet (15 kilometers), and it takes 30 or 40 minutes for them to reach this altitude. Along the way they levelled out for some time while they checked all of the onboard systems.
PHOTOS
As they spiralled higher above the desert, it became harder to even see where they were; eventually, though, they got high enough for contrails to start forming. Finally, around 7:50AM and 47,000 feet (14,250 meters) the White Knight released SpaceShipOne, which glided for about 10 seconds then lit its rocket engine.
So yes, they use a rocket in the second stage, but describing it as a "mobile launch platform" makes it sound like an aircraft carrier. They used conventional lift to reach almost to the top of the stratosphere before firing off the rocket.
So, what are you saying, Mr Wizard?
Are you saying that you think that the impact of friction involved in ploughing through the atmosphere to achieve that speed is irrelevant?
Are you saying that the fuel you save utilizing conventional lift to reach the top of the atmosphere instead of using rockets is irrelevant?
Oh, are you saying that gravitational pull at ground level is the same as it is in the high atmosphere?
You think throwing out Newtons Second Law of Motion and swearing a lot makes you sound smart buddy? It doesn't. You sound like an idiot.
The most fuel is consumed attempting to overcome the higher gravity at earths surface, which is 9.78 meters per second per second down near the equator and drops in a non-linear fashion with distance, and ploughing through the earths atmosphere, which generates drag and heat. Which also causes the explosions that plague rockets.
The way of the future is exactly as I have described it to you. It's so obvious that everyone in the private sector who is attempting to enter the arena of space flight has chosen this approach, including SpaceShipOne, which is functionally demonstrating the concept.
Next, we will see space assembled ships that cannot and will never fly within an atmosphere or be forced to bear their own weight, which will resemble nothing ever built before.
Why don't you try going to high school in a country with an education system next time.
You're trying to manipulate things into a word-game style victory that changes nothing about the issue at hand.
The issue at hand isn't that variation in genetic material is a naturally occurring thing. Everyone knows that mutations exist.
The difference is that a mutation needs to fight from the bottom and displace everything, and it needs to do it from a starting position in which it is the only one of its kind in existence.
What Monsanto does in a lab is create sterile incubators for their creations and culture them in numbers sufficient to carpet the earth, and releases them out into the wild.
It's TOTALLY fucking different.
There is no naturally occurring example of what Monsanto does that you can point at and say "There, see, it happened over there." None whatsoever.
Which means that there isn't any data upon which to base a conclusion, but only specultation.
Our great-grandchildren will be the ones equipped to judge the effect of what was done to us, after collecting a few generations of medical data. Not us. We aren't equipped.
Rockets are the most brain dead way to send things into space, it ought to be illegal.
You want a Hollywood version of how space travel ought to be done, take a look at the Marvel movie The Hulk. The scene where the pilot flies right up to the edge of the atmosphere, and a relatively slightest nudge from the Hulk pushes the plane into space.
Imagine the same scenario, except with the plane supplying the nudge, and another spacecraft waiting outside the atmosphere to receive the package that is hurled across the edge of the atmosphere into space.
That's how we should be doing space travel. Large planes with huge wingspans that generate enormous lift and act as a high orbit launch platform.
For such a smart bunch of people, NASA sure have been taking a stupid, dangerous and wasteful approach to space travel all these decades. I think it's driven by shady back room deals with the fuel industry, personally.
What a surprise.
Shooting is too good for Donald Rumsfeld. A blowtorch and a good pair of pliers would be an excellent way to get started.
Agreed.
If any college students get the urge to go shoot the hell out of some people and put a gun in their mouth, they should go visit Monsanto and do us all a solid on their way out.
Dire Straits said it best:
Last time I was sober, man I felt bad
Worst hangover that I ever had
Took six hamburgers, scotch all night
Nicotine for breakfast just to put me right
If you wanna run cool, you've got to run on Heavy Fuel.
If it wasn't for drinking and smoking, fucking and toking, there'd be no reason for working and eating.
Take a look at this line in the code: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
They "own all the code" MY ASS. Perhaps they retained the services of Mindpalette to design their website or their own developers used some of their code, but this statement indicated to me that they DO NOT own at least a good chunk of the JavaScript in this file. Have they done their "due diligence" concerning their IP? Are the (retarded) terms-of-service on this web page compatible with the terms of service agreed to by Mr. Baldwin? I am the author of some GPLed scripts myself, and if I discovered they were used on this site I would take issue and even consider legal action!
It's very funny. The acts of paying for an internet connection and a computer, setting up a server and a domain name, and put these html pages unsecured upon that server is an act of publication. That interpretation is why Kazaa lady got nailed. The thing being published is not a browsing experience, it is a text file. I can use any tool I wish to view and interpret that text file, be it one I downloaded or one I wrote myself.
Unless they have secured the pages against free access and collected an agreement to terms of use prior to transmitting this text file, they can not retroactively enforce them. This means they cannot enforce that I use any particular viewing medium for the text.
However, what they have done is materially represented in the same site that they own the technology and the copyrights as a corporation, and also that the copyrights are some individuals property.
If it isn't fraudulent on the basis that they use the obvious message to intimidate people via legal threats without basis in fact into not seeing the contradictory ownership message in the comments, it's most certainly too sloppy to be borne on the front page of a site run by Internet Lawyers.
I knew lawyers were scum, but I figured it would be necessary for them to be at least somewhat smarter to get in the door. Apparently not.
The point of the patents, from the perspective of one whose interests are US competitiveness, is to enforce them on other nations more than those other nations enforce them on you.
They're a 'smart' tax. If you want to act 'smart', you have to pay for permission, and it doesn't matter how unfair that is on the domestic level, as long as the rest of the world is either paying all their smart taxes your way or competing 'dumb', your nation will get richer by doing nothing.
Those responsible for the US economy don't want everyone freely sharing ideas and being as productive as they can be in an open fashion, because they've got a tiny population compared to the rest of the world, and most of them are elderly. They would quickly become irrelevant if that happened.
What they want is to have their part of their citizenry set up the paperwork to enforce the smart tax, and part maintaining the massive military dominance that perpetuates the system. Then they can just cruise and have those massive foreign populations take care of them.
Thus, the system is doing exactly what those at the helm want it to do.
If your agenda is to make statements as a unified body, you can't do that. It would be like if the US kicked everyone out of the UN except them, then claimed to have unanimous global support for their war of terror. It just doesn't work.
Someone needs to put a bullet in those people over at Microsoft.
Heh. One of my GFs clients constantly refers to something called "H-Tags". Any design update will be referred to in a very serious tone as "Fixing the H-Tags". I believe the people whose money she brings to us consider her very technically minded as she assures them that we can fix their H-Tags for them.
There are two ways you can look at your site.
1) My site is just like everyone elses. I want it to be on top though. I need to figure out clever ways to make my site perfect for Google, then they will give me all the traffic.
2) My site is fucking amazing. I dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's, and it's just right. I told some people, and they told some people, and it's still growing. Those search engine guys sure are using a lot of traffic with their robots. They're lucky I let them spider my site, but it's an open Internet... I guess it comes with success.
Different people are after different goals, but I figure, it's not my responsibility to pay attention to Google and do their job for them. It's my responsibility to build something that is excellent and pays attention to the user.
If you build excellence, and Google doesn't find a way to index it, they become less relevant, not the other way around.
You can waste a lot of time that could have been better spent elsewhere trying to conform to other peoples idea of how to build for search engines and end up with a site that doesn't serve the user as well as it did before you started.
What needs to happen is for someone to stand up and say "Yes, this woman downloaded music. But it's your corrupt laws that are at fault, serving the interests of criminal racketeers and destroying lives, and we're going to put a stop to it."
Then millions of people need to follow them in stringing those responsible for this circus up by the neck.
You don't negotiate with racketeers and terrorists.
Heh. I got strip searched and turned away trying to hitchhike to the second woodstock from Canada. They made me take my pants off, and when I said "If you're going to search any more than this, I don't really need to come into your country" and he didn't laugh, I was pretty nervous. Just squeezed out my toothpaste tubes and cut up my bars of soap and whatnot and sent us home.
No sense of humour at all.
I like how both the Aussies and the Kiwis will accuse the other of being sheep shaggers. Funny as hell.
I felt the same way going to Australia when they asked if I had a criminal record. I said "Wow, do you still need a criminal record to get into Australia? I don't have one."
Australians generally have a good sense of humour, thankfully.
The comments attached to the article are great
windows 98...shame on you
windows Me...shame on me
windows vista...GTFO of our country
Funniest think I've read all week
That's awesome. I wish we did that more around here.
You can put up as many solar panels as you want, floating in space, aimed at the sun. No need to clutter up the landscape of earth. It scales up until the point you've got a Dyson Sphere,
Then you transmit the power from the small panels to an space station in a geostable orbit around earth.
Then you transmit the power from the space station to a matching ground installation on the earths equator.
Then you transmit the power from there around the earth using whatever method is best.
The strengths of such a system are that you can scale your solar collections out endlessly, eventually aiming to farm space for materials to build more instead of shipping them from earth, while having a single transmission line to earth for it all. No more need of terrestrial power generation.
This is the way towards a future of continued growth for the human race. All global efforts should be dedicated to the achievement of this goal.
I didn't say anything about infinite number of infinite universes. What I put forward was that the universe might be finite, and if the branching universe stuff weren't a load of bollocks, in a finite universe, the number of parallel universes would also be finite, it would imply that there is a set number of possibilities for the universe, a set number of permutations, and we're all moving from one place in the set to the next.
If something like this were true, a presumption that there is a higher level of existence than the universe within which our "soul" lives would be a necessity to any concept of "traveling" the space-time set, as opposed to simply "being of" the space-time set.