Taxpayers pay the US Treasury, they don't pay NASA. Politicians decide whether any money comes out of the Treasury, not the taxpayers. NASA doesn't have to pander to the public, it has to pander to politicians. Seriously, when was the last time an astronaut called your house asking for money, or you saw a NASA billboard asking for donations?
We may have AI in 20 years? Hmm, where have I heard this before... Now I remember.
"By 1985, machines will be capable of doing any work Man can do." -- Herbert A. Simon, of Carnegie Mellon University - considered to be a founder of the field of artificial intelligence - speaking in 1965.
"We have more than six million domains for sale," said Jeremiah Johnston, Sedo's general counsel. "It's impossible for us to proactively filter sales."
Yeah, let's see how impossible it is when Paypal, Visa, Chase, Citibank, and BofA sue you for trademark infringement and unfair competition, with hundreds of other companies waiting in the wings.
TV doesn't "get" science fiction. These corporations are run by corporate suits with MBA's and degrees in marketing and have no soul and no imagination.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
What does the rest of Slashdot think about retaining search data? Is it a liability or an asset?
This is a classic case of Slashdot blinders, thinking the entire world is black or white. Here, let me help you:
Retaining data is obviously a liability. It's invasive of my privacy. It gives companies data on me that they can sell to other companies without my permission, and those other companies send me annoying pre-screened offers of credit. My info will eventually end up in a big database in the basement of the FBI, where they'll try to link me to terrorism by playing a big connect-the-dots game. 'He searched for the Anarchist Cookbook and Catcher in the Rye. Arrest his ass.'
On the other hand, retaining data is obviously an asset. It allows companies to cater their services to my personal needs. It lets them suggest products that I may not have even known existed. My information builds company worth, which stimulates the economy and provides employees with jobs. It facilitates retailer/customer trust and loyalty, which benefits both parties.
I'm sure I could go on and on with more arguments for both sides, but I hope you've gotten the point by now: the world isn't black and white, business decisions are hard, and the rest of the world already knows these things.
Without creators, there would be no new expression, and without distributors, no one would learn from that expression and build on it. Thus, the traditional viewpoint has been that copyright should protect both creators and distributors.
The term of the copyright doesn't upset this analysis. What does upset it is that with the advent and rapid development of the Internet, distribution is no longer a limiting factor. There is no longer a danger that one's work won't be distributed.[1] Society has solved this issue on its own, independent of copyright laws. We don't need to protect distributors with copyrights any more.
Furthermore, the economic incentive that copyrights provide to distributors simply isn't justified. While the demand for copyrighted works has increased due to population growth and increased expressiveness, the 'supply' given to the people by increasing Internet bandwidth and ubiquity has exponentially outpaced it. Without artificial regulation (i.e., copyright law), these developments would ordinarily drive profit margins to nothing. Thus the distribution monopoly power becomes Yet Another Pointless Government Subsidy, benefiting a special interest group that isn't even contributing anything particularly worthwhile. Farm subsidies are one thing, they keep the price of bread low. Subsidizing an inefficient alternative to the Internet is pure waste.
I say end copyright protection for distributors, with the trade-off of guaranteed Internet access for everyone as a new human right. Subsidize libraries and public kiosks for net access to ensure this right. Of course, this shifts the subsidy to ISPs and the 'backbones', but their worth to society is justifiable independent of copyright law.
[1] One's work may not be watched or heard, but it will always be available for the watching. That's a demand problem, not a supply problem, and it's solved by artists competing for attention in the marketplace. This, in turn, naturally drives up the quality of the art in the eyes of the public, which is a good thing.
The essay portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test does not measure Scholastic Aptitude. According to the College Board, students are given 25 minutes to digest a question, consider its ramifications, develop an opinion, prepare a response, and write it coherently, in a well-organized and persuasive fashion. The shortness of the test, therefore, encourages the test-taker to, respectively: misconstrue questions and jump to conclusions, consider issues only at the most shallow and superficial level, form opinions hastily, forego careful argument construction, and avoid correcting mistakes in grammar and diction in order to get everything down on paper. It's hard for me to believe that this test provides any useful metrics on critical thinking at all.
Either kids have a right to privacy and the responsibilities that come with the lack of supervision, or they don't have that right, and the parents have to accept some responsibility if they don't know what their kids are doing.
The world is not black and white. Kids can handle different responsibility at different ages. As they show more maturity, parents can start trusting them with more, and they can have more privacy. That said, I agree that young children's online habits should be carefully monitored, especially until they can tell when someone is trying to take advantage of them (sexually or otherwise). When you're watching your kid and they look up at you and say "I'm leaving this chat room, that guy is a perv," you can probably let them go.
I think I should add that, aside from the ways gambling companies will work around this law, this move is yet another in a long series of laws passed by Congress which have the effect of driving business overseas to the detriment of our national economy, for no tangible gain. If you want to regulate my business, you better give me a good reason why it should be regulated.
Regulating businesses on moral grounds is fine, to the extent you can show there are actually morals involved. There aren't any here. Games of chance make money by redistributing wealth from those who don't understand probability (or don't care) to those who do. You aren't forced to gamble, and your rights aren't violated if you lose. Gambling is a personal choice, like buying a house outside your means, or blowing your paycheck on Saturday to go boozing with your friends. To the extent gambling is addictive and Congress wants to regulate it out of a public health concern, fine, but then why aren't they stopping suppliers of alcoholics and nicotine addicts who transport their goods across state lines? Booze and smokes kill more people every year than gambling addictions. This law stinks to high heaven of special interest groups and hypocracy.
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made. (B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where-- (i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State; (ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include-- (I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and (II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State's law or regulations; and (iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of the-- (I) Interstate Horseracing Act; (II) Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act; (III) Gambling Devices Transportation Act; or (IV) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. * * * (E) INTERMEDIATE ROUTING- The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which a bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.
Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states.
All this law does is make internet gambling sites shell out a few (hundred) thousand dollars for server upgrades and a minor software patch. Yippee.
I can understand that a law exists that prevents items that violate US patent law from being exported
That's not what's going on here. The definition of direct infringement is in 35 U.S.C. 271(a):
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
The law doesn't cover exports directly, but it does say you can't make a patented invention in the US (for export) unless you have authority. There is, however, a loophole in this definition: if you wanted to export a patented invention to sell it overseas (without permission), but you can't make it domestically because of 271(a), then you can make the parts in the US, ship the parts overseas, and have the invention assembled there. Congress didn't like that, so they enacted 271(f).
271(f) comes in two flavors. 271(f)(1) basically says that you can't ship parts overseas for assembly if you couldn't legally assemble them in the US. 271(f)(2) basically says that you can't make in the US and ship overseas any items which have no use other than as part of a patented invention.
The Supreme Court is trying to figure out two things: whether object code counts as a 'component part' that can be combined with other components overseas in violation of 271(f), and if so, whether copies made overseas of object code originating in the US count as 'made in the US' for the purposes of assembly overseas. The image on the Patently-O blog shows what's going on.
"Your honor, by refusing to pay our fee the search engine is not only depriving us of our fair due, but also giving an unfair competitive advantage to our competitors. We demand that they add us to their search database and pay our very reasonable fee for accessing our pages."
Google: "Your honor, is opposing counsel really suggesting that we are required to do business with them against our wishes?"
Of course, the suit would never get that far. Here's a summary of unfair competition law.
I'm not stupid enough to fight the system. It's like swimming against a rip tide. You swim and swim against the current, and you never get anywhere. Eventually it takes you out to sea, and you die.
"Give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry
I'm going to fight for my freedom. However I can. I don't care if I die in the process, but at least I'm going to fight.
someone would claim to have "made them famous" on their website and demand some of their earnings from concerts, videos, commercials.
And get laughed at. Who gives people money just because they demand it? The recording industry makes money because they manufacture, distribute, and sell recordings. Making musicians famous is only a means to that end, it isn't worthy of payment by itself.
Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?
Here's the fundamental problem: you can have fair justice or cheap justice. Every time someone does something unfair and games the system, a judge or Congress creates more rules to level the playing field. Getting to the level of 'fairness' we have now requires lots and lots of rules, to account for all the different possible situations. Following those rules is complicated, and if you don't follow them you can have your case thrown out. That's why you hire lawyers. But that also means more expensive litigation.
The RIAA knows that, which is why they're suing individuals and not companies. Now if only someone would make a rule to prevent them from doing that...
Slashdot Mirror
Just use a box cutter. We need a whole article on this?
Right-click the block entry, select "Allow [IP] permanently". Problem solved without enabling all HTTP.
Here's a public urinal in Amsterdam: pic. I used one of these the last time I was there, very convenient.
Taxpayers pay the US Treasury, they don't pay NASA. Politicians decide whether any money comes out of the Treasury, not the taxpayers. NASA doesn't have to pander to the public, it has to pander to politicians. Seriously, when was the last time an astronaut called your house asking for money, or you saw a NASA billboard asking for donations?
Never underestimate the power of simplicity.
So saith wikipedia.
Your post entirely ignores the issue of voter fraud. Show me evidence that there wasn't any, and then we'll talk.
Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?"
Sci-fi discusses ideas. The evening news discusses events. Reality shows discuss people.
Perhaps the TV execs just understand reality shows better than sci-fi. Chalk up another one to the soulless minions of (television) orthodoxy.
Take flying lessons. Really. It's a lot safer. If you're 16 years old and your instructor signs off, you can even fly solo.
This is a classic case of Slashdot blinders, thinking the entire world is black or white. Here, let me help you:
Retaining data is obviously a liability. It's invasive of my privacy. It gives companies data on me that they can sell to other companies without my permission, and those other companies send me annoying pre-screened offers of credit. My info will eventually end up in a big database in the basement of the FBI, where they'll try to link me to terrorism by playing a big connect-the-dots game. 'He searched for the Anarchist Cookbook and Catcher in the Rye. Arrest his ass.'
On the other hand, retaining data is obviously an asset. It allows companies to cater their services to my personal needs. It lets them suggest products that I may not have even known existed. My information builds company worth, which stimulates the economy and provides employees with jobs. It facilitates retailer/customer trust and loyalty, which benefits both parties.
I'm sure I could go on and on with more arguments for both sides, but I hope you've gotten the point by now: the world isn't black and white, business decisions are hard, and the rest of the world already knows these things.
The term of the copyright doesn't upset this analysis. What does upset it is that with the advent and rapid development of the Internet, distribution is no longer a limiting factor. There is no longer a danger that one's work won't be distributed.[1] Society has solved this issue on its own, independent of copyright laws. We don't need to protect distributors with copyrights any more.
Furthermore, the economic incentive that copyrights provide to distributors simply isn't justified. While the demand for copyrighted works has increased due to population growth and increased expressiveness, the 'supply' given to the people by increasing Internet bandwidth and ubiquity has exponentially outpaced it. Without artificial regulation (i.e., copyright law), these developments would ordinarily drive profit margins to nothing. Thus the distribution monopoly power becomes Yet Another Pointless Government Subsidy, benefiting a special interest group that isn't even contributing anything particularly worthwhile. Farm subsidies are one thing, they keep the price of bread low. Subsidizing an inefficient alternative to the Internet is pure waste.
I say end copyright protection for distributors, with the trade-off of guaranteed Internet access for everyone as a new human right. Subsidize libraries and public kiosks for net access to ensure this right. Of course, this shifts the subsidy to ISPs and the 'backbones', but their worth to society is justifiable independent of copyright law.
[1] One's work may not be watched or heard, but it will always be available for the watching. That's a demand problem, not a supply problem, and it's solved by artists competing for attention in the marketplace. This, in turn, naturally drives up the quality of the art in the eyes of the public, which is a good thing.
The essay portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test does not measure Scholastic Aptitude. According to the College Board, students are given 25 minutes to digest a question, consider its ramifications, develop an opinion, prepare a response, and write it coherently, in a well-organized and persuasive fashion. The shortness of the test, therefore, encourages the test-taker to, respectively: misconstrue questions and jump to conclusions, consider issues only at the most shallow and superficial level, form opinions hastily, forego careful argument construction, and avoid correcting mistakes in grammar and diction in order to get everything down on paper. It's hard for me to believe that this test provides any useful metrics on critical thinking at all.
Regulating businesses on moral grounds is fine, to the extent you can show there are actually morals involved. There aren't any here. Games of chance make money by redistributing wealth from those who don't understand probability (or don't care) to those who do. You aren't forced to gamble, and your rights aren't violated if you lose. Gambling is a personal choice, like buying a house outside your means, or blowing your paycheck on Saturday to go boozing with your friends. To the extent gambling is addictive and Congress wants to regulate it out of a public health concern, fine, but then why aren't they stopping suppliers of alcoholics and nicotine addicts who transport their goods across state lines? Booze and smokes kill more people every year than gambling addictions. This law stinks to high heaven of special interest groups and hypocracy.
Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states.
All this law does is make internet gambling sites shell out a few (hundred) thousand dollars for server upgrades and a minor software patch. Yippee.
271(f) comes in two flavors. 271(f)(1) basically says that you can't ship parts overseas for assembly if you couldn't legally assemble them in the US. 271(f)(2) basically says that you can't make in the US and ship overseas any items which have no use other than as part of a patented invention.
The Supreme Court is trying to figure out two things: whether object code counts as a 'component part' that can be combined with other components overseas in violation of 271(f), and if so, whether copies made overseas of object code originating in the US count as 'made in the US' for the purposes of assembly overseas. The image on the Patently-O blog shows what's going on.
Of course, the suit would never get that far. Here's a summary of unfair competition law.
I'm going to fight for my freedom. However I can. I don't care if I die in the process, but at least I'm going to fight.
The RIAA knows that, which is why they're suing individuals and not companies. Now if only someone would make a rule to prevent them from doing that...