Flying would become a lot cheaper too for two reasons.
First, the cost of the aluminum and many other materials in planes, which are very sensitive to energy costs, would go down, making the planes themselves a bit cheaper
But, more importantly, the cost of fuel would go way down, even if the only form of essentially "free" energy were electricity, because given any hydrocarbon plus a refining plant and lots of energy, you can pretty much convert it to any other kind - you could for instance turn sulfur-rich coal, which currently is abundant but pretty useless, into high-grade jet fuel.
You can't stop people from copying. Trying to is like trying to outlaw gravity. And enforcing "laws" against copying would require constant surveillance of every human activity, contrary to even the flimsiest notions of basic privacy rights.
I don't think true reform of the IP system (including patents, copyright, trade secret law, etc.) can really move forward until this is recognized.
Software, like music, art, etc., can be reduced to a bunch of 1s and 0s . . or (equivalently) a very large integer.
If you don't want your work to be copied, you really have only two choices. Either don't disclose it without strict NDAs, contracts, etc. (i.e., make it a trade secret). Or do work that does not consist of a very large and easily copyable integer.
The days of profit owing solely to artificial scarcity are over, and no amount of wishing or legislating to the contrary is going to change that.
If you want to make a living, then produce products or services (not just large integers) that people are willing to pay for.
.NET does not offer much of value over Java or Free Software alternatives, except a fairly nice IDE.
.NET is significantly better than previous M$ offerings (VB6, ASP, VBScript), although it shares the weakness of being more or less Windows-only and is somewhat hard to learn.
Web Services were a good idea that showed up at the wrong time. If not for the dotcom bust we would be seeing a lot more. The beauty of Web Services is that they allow for genuinely distributed computing using open standards and protocols. I have no doubt that M$ would have polluted this idea eventually, but, also thanks to the bust, it really hasn't had the chance.
I always recommend free, cross-platform solutions wherever possible (PHP, Perl, Python, Apache, Linux or *BSD, Zope, wxWindows, etc.), but if you have a lot of legacy VB and/or ASP stuff,.NET almost certainly is better than what you have now.
The punishment, far from being draconian, doesn't even come close to equalling the severity of the crime. One large spam can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of loss to those forced to forward and/or read it. Stealing that money from a single party would result in much more jail time. Why should it be less just because hundreds of thousands or millions of people have been robbed, instead of just one???
Actually, to even come close to being fair, the spammer ought to be forced to make restitution to each and every party whose time and/or money he or she has stolen
Actually, guns are designed, purchased, and used for one major purpose: defending their owners from being attacked and killed by thugs (both inside and outside the "government").
I'm also not too worried about West Nile, and others like it. Let's be realistic - if you're not very old, very young, or immune-compromised, your odds of catching it and dying (or even knowing) are lower than being struck by lightning.
I had a moderately severe case of West Nile last year, complete with meningitis, and I fall into none of the above categories.
The risk is small, but not nearly as small as you make it out to be.
Also, mosquitoes, even in the First World, carry a lot of nasty diseases, not just West Nile, that you are best off avoiding. And it's not hard to do. Just wear mosquito repellant when outdoors.
Before you go about shooting someone, you need to damn well make certain--and I mean certain--that they pose a clear and present threat to your life, your family's life, or some innocent person's life.
Although I would really like to agree with this, when someone has broken into your home, you simply do not have the luxury of being certain.
First, any intruder almost certainly is a clear and present threat. Life already is cheap, and people get shot for far less reason than breaking and entering, and everyone knows this. Thus, rational people simply don't do it. They knock and identify themselves first. Even the police knock first most of the time, contrary to what you might see in movies. So anyone who does break in is likely irrational, making them almost certain to be a threat.
Second, you will have only seconds to decide, IF you're lucky. It is very likely that you are sleepy and the intruder is not. He already has the advantage of surprise. He almost certainly is armed. If you are still alive after the several seconds it will probably take to quietly retrieve, un-safety and aim your weapon, it means he has not seen you, and you definitely want to keep it that way. Once you announce your presence, intentionally or not, you'd better be ready to shoot faster than he can, or you and your family are dead.
Finally, the safety of your family greatly outweighs that of some random intruder. If it has to be one or the other, hopefully the intruder has made his peace with God.
I don't want to sound like a callous, heartless asshole (even though in that situation I probably would be - I hope to hell I would). It's just that homes are locked for a reason, and if someone breaks in, especially in a dangerous areas, you have to assume hostile intent, or else you and your family end up being dead instead of the criminal.
Gravity is a law. Things fall down, not up. No legislator had to decide this. It just sort of happens on its own.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a law. It is a slightly different kind of law, but it is a law nonetheless, because no society can function without a recognition that murder is wrong. Those that don't soon collapse.
Most of what we call "laws" today are nothing more than the commands issued by powerful and corrupt individuals, for purposes of protecting their own power. They are no more "law" than the ravings of someone declaring that henceforth all things should fall up instead of down. You can wish these things all you want, but they won't happen, because they are contrary to the way the universe works.
One law we do have, a very wise one, is that nothing contrary to the Constitution, and especially nothing contrary to the explicit limitations it places on government power or the protections of human rights that it recognizes, should ever be considered valid law (9th and 10th Amendments).
The so-called "Patriot Act" is NOT law. It is the demands of a powerful class, aimed at keeping that class in power. We may have to cooperate with it for the time being because otherwise they will kill us. But that does NOT make it law.
Congratulations to those brave individuals who are openly resisting the so-called "Patriot Act." If freedom is ever restored to the U.S. or the many countries it dominates, then it will be in part because of these people, who understand that an unjust law is no law at all, and whose decency compels them to follow the real law instead of the made-up demands of powerful tyrants and thugs.
Exactly. Although the Constitution nowhere says so, the Supreme Court apparently has been given the almost unquestioned authority to be the "last word" on the Constitutionality of a law. It takes very, very few cases. Even if it wanted to strike down all the unconstitutional "law" on the books, it would take millenia. And so far it has shown very little inclination to do so in most situations.
People sometimes have been freed after "laws" they were convicted under were struck down, but it is not a common thing.
The Constitution does not give the fedgov power to declare any essentially private behavior "illegal," and all "laws" contrary to the Constitution are null and void. The DMCA is unconstitutional on its face - it openly contradicts the 1st Amendment. Hence, it is null and void, and, therefore, circumventing copyright protection in and of itself is NOT illegal.
The criminals masquerading as a "government" in our screwed-up society may consider it illegal, and you may have to pretend to respect their opinion for the time being, since they might put you in jail or kill you if you don't. But that doesn't make it right.
Also, if you are circumventing copy protection in order to defraud another person or company, this is certainly wrong, and possibly illegal as well - not because of the DMCA, but because of the natural rights of the person or entity you are defrauding, and because there are valid laws at the state level (and in other nations) to address this behavior.
But please do not make the mistake of thinking that something is "illegal" just because the fedgov says so. 99.9% of the time, it isn't.
A true free market requires freedom to compete. One big problem with our economy is that some players have learned how to use the "system" to shut out competitors, and without competition, a market is no longer free. This is a pretty good example.
What's the solution? Better antitrust laws/enforcement? Not really. The biggest players clearly have learned how to subvert laws of every kind, and, besides, these laws attack the symptom, not the problem. There is nothing wrong with being successful, but there is something very wrong with being able to "legally" threaten harm to competitors, through the patent system or by any other means.
Perhaps patent "examiners" should be liable for the considerable economic harm caused by failure to perform their lawful duties (such as checking for prior art, etc.)? And certainly those who apply for patents they know to be bogus ought to be liable as well.
Otherwise, criminals (in business and government) continue to get a free ride at the expense of all the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Flying would become a lot cheaper too for two reasons.
First, the cost of the aluminum and many other materials in planes, which are very sensitive to energy costs, would go down, making the planes themselves a bit cheaper
But, more importantly, the cost of fuel would go way down, even if the only form of essentially "free" energy were electricity, because given any hydrocarbon plus a refining plant and lots of energy, you can pretty much convert it to any other kind - you could for instance turn sulfur-rich coal, which currently is abundant but pretty useless, into high-grade jet fuel.
You can't stop people from copying. Trying to is like trying to outlaw gravity. And enforcing "laws" against copying would require constant surveillance of every human activity, contrary to even the flimsiest notions of basic privacy rights.
I don't think true reform of the IP system (including patents, copyright, trade secret law, etc.) can really move forward until this is recognized.
Software, like music, art, etc., can be reduced to a bunch of 1s and 0s . . or (equivalently) a very large integer.
If you don't want your work to be copied, you really have only two choices. Either don't disclose it without strict NDAs, contracts, etc. (i.e., make it a trade secret). Or do work that does not consist of a very large and easily copyable integer.
The days of profit owing solely to artificial scarcity are over, and no amount of wishing or legislating to the contrary is going to change that.
If you want to make a living, then produce products or services (not just large integers) that people are willing to pay for.
.NET does not offer much of value over Java or Free Software alternatives, except a fairly nice IDE.
.NET is significantly better than previous M$ offerings (VB6, ASP, VBScript), although it shares the weakness of being more or less Windows-only and is somewhat hard to learn.
Web Services were a good idea that showed up at the wrong time. If not for the dotcom bust we would be seeing a lot more. The beauty of Web Services is that they allow for genuinely distributed computing using open standards and protocols. I have no doubt that M$ would have polluted this idea eventually, but, also thanks to the bust, it really hasn't had the chance.
I always recommend free, cross-platform solutions wherever possible (PHP, Perl, Python, Apache, Linux or *BSD, Zope, wxWindows, etc.), but if you have a lot of legacy VB and/or ASP stuff, .NET almost certainly is better than what you have now.
The punishment, far from being draconian, doesn't even come close to equalling the severity of the crime. One large spam can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of loss to those forced to forward and/or read it. Stealing that money from a single party would result in much more jail time. Why should it be less just because hundreds of thousands or millions of people have been robbed, instead of just one???
Actually, to even come close to being fair, the spammer ought to be forced to make restitution to each and every party whose time and/or money he or she has stolen
Actually, guns are designed, purchased, and used for one major purpose: defending their owners from being attacked and killed by thugs (both inside and outside the "government").
I'm also not too worried about West Nile, and others like it. Let's be realistic - if you're not very old, very young, or immune-compromised, your odds of catching it and dying (or even knowing) are lower than being struck by lightning.
I had a moderately severe case of West Nile last year, complete with meningitis, and I fall into none of the above categories.
The risk is small, but not nearly as small as you make it out to be.
Also, mosquitoes, even in the First World, carry a lot of nasty diseases, not just West Nile, that you are best off avoiding. And it's not hard to do. Just wear mosquito repellant when outdoors.
Are you under the impression that current drug "laws" are a "conservative" phenomenon?
Both parties support the so-called "War on Drugs" and both parties need to be dismantled in order for it to end.
Before you go about shooting someone, you need to damn well make certain--and I mean certain--that they pose a clear and present threat to your life, your family's life, or some innocent person's life.
Although I would really like to agree with this, when someone has broken into your home, you simply do not have the luxury of being certain.
First, any intruder almost certainly is a clear and present threat. Life already is cheap, and people get shot for far less reason than breaking and entering, and everyone knows this. Thus, rational people simply don't do it. They knock and identify themselves first. Even the police knock first most of the time, contrary to what you might see in movies. So anyone who does break in is likely irrational, making them almost certain to be a threat.
Second, you will have only seconds to decide, IF you're lucky. It is very likely that you are sleepy and the intruder is not. He already has the advantage of surprise. He almost certainly is armed. If you are still alive after the several seconds it will probably take to quietly retrieve, un-safety and aim your weapon, it means he has not seen you, and you definitely want to keep it that way. Once you announce your presence, intentionally or not, you'd better be ready to shoot faster than he can, or you and your family are dead.
Finally, the safety of your family greatly outweighs that of some random intruder. If it has to be one or the other, hopefully the intruder has made his peace with God.
I don't want to sound like a callous, heartless asshole (even though in that situation I probably would be - I hope to hell I would). It's just that homes are locked for a reason, and if someone breaks in, especially in a dangerous areas, you have to assume hostile intent, or else you and your family end up being dead instead of the criminal.
Would people like these even *notice* the smell of raw manure????
True law is discovered, not made.
Gravity is a law. Things fall down, not up. No legislator had to decide this. It just sort of happens on its own.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a law. It is a slightly different kind of law, but it is a law nonetheless, because no society can function without a recognition that murder is wrong. Those that don't soon collapse.
Most of what we call "laws" today are nothing more than the commands issued by powerful and corrupt individuals, for purposes of protecting their own power. They are no more "law" than the ravings of someone declaring that henceforth all things should fall up instead of down. You can wish these things all you want, but they won't happen, because they are contrary to the way the universe works.
One law we do have, a very wise one, is that nothing contrary to the Constitution, and especially nothing contrary to the explicit limitations it places on government power or the protections of human rights that it recognizes, should ever be considered valid law (9th and 10th Amendments).
The so-called "Patriot Act" is NOT law. It is the demands of a powerful class, aimed at keeping that class in power. We may have to cooperate with it for the time being because otherwise they will kill us. But that does NOT make it law.
Congratulations to those brave individuals who are openly resisting the so-called "Patriot Act." If freedom is ever restored to the U.S. or the many countries it dominates, then it will be in part because of these people, who understand that an unjust law is no law at all, and whose decency compels them to follow the real law instead of the made-up demands of powerful tyrants and thugs.
Exactly. Although the Constitution nowhere says so, the Supreme Court apparently has been given the almost unquestioned authority to be the "last word" on the Constitutionality of a law. It takes very, very few cases. Even if it wanted to strike down all the unconstitutional "law" on the books, it would take millenia. And so far it has shown very little inclination to do so in most situations.
People sometimes have been freed after "laws" they were convicted under were struck down, but it is not a common thing.
The Constitution does not give the fedgov power to declare any essentially private behavior "illegal," and all "laws" contrary to the Constitution are null and void. The DMCA is unconstitutional on its face - it openly contradicts the 1st Amendment. Hence, it is null and void, and, therefore, circumventing copyright protection in and of itself is NOT illegal.
The criminals masquerading as a "government" in our screwed-up society may consider it illegal, and you may have to pretend to respect their opinion for the time being, since they might put you in jail or kill you if you don't. But that doesn't make it right.
Also, if you are circumventing copy protection in order to defraud another person or company, this is certainly wrong, and possibly illegal as well - not because of the DMCA, but because of the natural rights of the person or entity you are defrauding, and because there are valid laws at the state level (and in other nations) to address this behavior.
But please do not make the mistake of thinking that something is "illegal" just because the fedgov says so. 99.9% of the time, it isn't.
See www.constitution.org.
A true free market requires freedom to compete. One big problem with our economy is that some players have learned how to use the "system" to shut out competitors, and without competition, a market is no longer free. This is a pretty good example.
What's the solution? Better antitrust laws/enforcement? Not really. The biggest players clearly have learned how to subvert laws of every kind, and, besides, these laws attack the symptom, not the problem. There is nothing wrong with being successful, but there is something very wrong with being able to "legally" threaten harm to competitors, through the patent system or by any other means.
Perhaps patent "examiners" should be liable for the considerable economic harm caused by failure to perform their lawful duties (such as checking for prior art, etc.)? And certainly those who apply for patents they know to be bogus ought to be liable as well.
Otherwise, criminals (in business and government) continue to get a free ride at the expense of all the rest of us.