Don't they get it? The whole point of trying to track information about the kind of things people want to buy is to take the "unwanted" out of advertising. Do you think that they want annoy you and bombard you with useless information? Of course not, that wastes your time and their money, no one wants that. Sure you should be able to opt out of this kind of service, but it's strange to try to pull some kind of sinister motivation out of it. Obviously, they would sell you the device that monitors your garbage because you want this service. It's not like they're planning on covertly installing these devices in everyones garbage. I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?
The thing is that it really is illegal. You don't need to hire a lawyer to take them to small claims court, they would probably just pay you a settlement if you filed suit (since there's no way they'd win, no matter how many lawyers they hire). Companies just try that kind of bullshit in expecting that you won't fight it. Kind of like when they keep sending you magazines after your subscription has expired, and tell you that you have to pay for them (and send a debt collection agency after you). It's bullshit, and it won't stand up in small claims court (regardless of whether or not you can get a lawyer).
Of course, there are some times where the terms can change, like if an interest rate is variable based on the national rate, but these are pretty specific occasions, and they're explicitly laid out in the contract. The only other example I can think of is insurance, they can change their coverage in order to limit their own liability, but this is only within reasonable boundaries (though you wouldn't know it to look at the contract terms).
Another good example is the lease on my apartment. It says that they (the landlord) can enter the apartment at any time without notice, but that's definitely illegal, and it wouldn't hold up in court. I know there are a couple other things in my lease that I'm not really obligated to. Again, it's basically so that they can try to talk me into giving them money when I'm not really legally obligated to.
If you talk to them, and make it clear that you know you are not obligated to pay, they won't try to hold you to your supposed obligations (to do so would be a waste of money for them). But once you've paid, you can't get your money back. Just try to be a savvy consumer, avoid shady businesses like these (unfortunately just about all landlords, telecoms, and insurance providers are shady in this respect) and don't let them push you around if you have to deal with them.
One of the powers you refer to is the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This grants congress the power to make laws other than those the constitution specifically states it may make, so long as they promote the powers granted by constitution. The power to make such laws need not be specifically enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. This is how the Louisiana Purchase was made, despite the fact that the constitution does not specifically allow congress to purchase land from foreign governments.
The bill of rights (which is part of the constitution) is clearly a list of restrictions. They all say " the right to . . . shall not be infringed" or "congress shall make no law restricting . .." or something similar restricting the power of the government.
Also, under the elastic clause the congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary to carry out the powers and purposes of the constitution, so the congress may have the ability of regulate speech, so long as it promotes the purpose of the constitution, and does not violate the first amendment (I don't think that's really possible, but if it were. ..). The ability of congress to make a law regulating something does not need to be specifically enumerated in the constitution.
"Finally, I'm not so sure I like the RIAA any better than the Russian mafia. Either way, not one cent of my money is going to be given to the musicians."
This is a common myth perpetuated by musicians. The truth is, the record label gives them a cash advance for the rights to distribute their music, and promises royalties for each sale made. The catch is, the artist must "pay back" the cash advance from their royalties. If they don't sell enough to "pay back" the advance, they never see any royalties. But the fact is, they did get paid for the music, and they are entitled to royalties, assuming they sell enough music to recoup the labels investment in them. If they do not earn enough royalties, they can still keep the advance, but they will never get the rights to their music back (without buying them).
It's still definitely better to pay the labels than to pay the russian mafia.
I know that, that's why I said the rest of the developed world. So it seems that you can't read either.
Second of all, with reference to paying artists, I'll believe it when I see it, and why is it okay for someone other than the artist (or copyright holder) to determine how much a song is worth? Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
No, you don't understand. You are paying people in Russian to undermine the economies of the rest of the developed world. What's worse, you are doing it for no good reason. If you don't care about copyright law, you don't have to pay anyone anything to get this music. If you are buying this music from them, you are basically just giving money to some russian scam-artist asshole. There is no sense in it. It has nothing to do with my education, or the law.
You'd be better off throwing your money away than giving it to these assholes. Don't you understand that? The money you are spending in no way contributes the the production of the music you are buying. This is like if some shady character came to you house and offered to sell you your neighbors car for $200. Your neighbor didn't agree to it, so you might as well have just stolen the car yourself. At least that way that shady character didn't make off with your $200 in the process. Do you understand what I am saying.
If you have no respect for IP law, you have no reason to pay for this music. So please don't do it.
Why don't you just steal your own music. At least that way you aren't paying some Russian mafia asshole to steal it for you. What in gods name do you think you are paying for? If you have no intention of respecting American copyright law, at least don't pay some fucking Russian asshole for nothing.
What the hell is wrong with you? I can't believe this, the stupidity is appalling. I just keep getting more and more angry at the blatant stupidity of this and all other comments like it. I wish I could reach through my computer screen and slap you. Whatever you do, don't pay some russian assholes to steel some one else's IP. At least have the respect and common sense to steal it yourself. Why are you so stupid? Aaaaaah!
I'm going to go get some ice cream and try to calm down. Please, Please, Please don't give those assholes any more money.
"which you are confusing with the WWW" I'm not confusing anything with the WWW, you simply misread my post. They problem is not that I am confusing hypertext with WWW (I know well what both are), but that you are confusing HTML (which was invented in switzerland) with the WWW (which wasn't really invented in any one place).
"but he did invent the WWW as we know it" That's a nice way of saying that previous incarnations of WWW may not be recognizable today as such to a normal person. But of course, any standards you may set to differentiate between earlier technologies and the "modern" WWW are completely subjective and arbitrary. To say that the invention of one piece of this set of technologies constitutes creation of the WWW is absurd. The WWW was definitely not invented in switzerland. WWW is a collection of technologies and no one country may lay claim to it's creation.
There are so many things wrong with this is is not even funny. First of all, almost all pentagon research is done by academics, so it's really silly to say that academics run things better than the pentagon.
Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this. The invention of HTML has very little to do with the creation of the internet. First of all, hypertext was around long before HTML, and hypertext files could already be transmitted over the (existing) internet. This is merely another standard for turing text into page layouts, which happens to be in widespread use. It is a small part of the internet at best.
I'm not even going to address your last paragraph. You're so far out there that you probably have escape velocity.
It's important that you understand that the U.S. constitution guarantees rights specifically to U.S. citizens. If you wanted your own rights, you should've written your own constitution, or moved to the U.S. (it's better here anyway). Otherwise, you're just complaining about the incompetence of your own government, to whose governance you willingly submit. I have no sympathy for you.
There is a big difference between individual rights and general welfare. There's always some self-absorbed douche-bag in the government who thinks he knows what's good for you better than you do. At least with specifically enumerated individual rights, the courts can stop that asshole from infringing on your rights. This is only true in the US.
"Secondly, we already have organizations like the World Bank and other NGOs that work on bringing them direct aid for things like food, water, wells and shelter. If you read up on how much the World Bank accomplishes you'd be amazed. "
Well, considering that most the african countries the world bank lent money to are no better off today then they were 30 years ago (though they are now deeply in debt), I'd say that the direct aid was completely ineffective. But, that's just me. Other countries that were once impoverished like India, and China are definitely much better of today than they were then. The difference is trade and industrialization, direct aid has been almost entirely ineffective.
I don't think just giving away laptops will teach people to use computers. I mean, the software you're talking about them using is fairly sophisticated, and not always intuitively designed. It's silly to give away computers and then expect people to learn to use them through osmosis. A lot of people they're talking about simply do not have the time or the inclination to learn to use software when they should be out figuring out how to feed themselves.
Foreign aid to developing countries is completely upside-down. We think that we can give them education and political stability, in the mean time providing direct aid and the resources for prosperity will naturally develop. It doesn't work this way, education is a luxury that only wealthy people can afford. If we really want to help these countries, we need to eliminate trade barriers and allow them to sell us low-cost goods. This will allow them to develop infrastructure, resources, and as a result political stability. Then they will have the ability to educate their population and develop into prosperous nations. Just giving people laptops is meaningless, wasteful, and stupid.
Social Welfare-"Privatizing these programs is, however, far worse because its basically just a give away to investment firms." Privatizing social welfare is just a way of killing it which is politically feasible. Social security is not okay because I am forced to spend my money in a way that I do not have control over. This kind of government meddling in my life is not acceptable to me.
Foreign Policy-one name Jimmy Carter. As long as this is the kind of foreign policy democrats favor (and it is), it will never work. You can complain about Iran contra, but Regan did end the cold war, that brought an end to decades of meaningless aggression that created global instability and caused us to waste a lot of money on military spending that could've been spent elsewhere.
Economic Protectionism- whenever you hear someone say "we need to stop the outsourcing of jobs" that's protectionism. You hear republicans say this, but it is not the official party line. Of course, many democrats (like John Kerry) are avid supporters of free trade as well (though they are maybe not so open about it)
Fiscal policy-the national debt is not worrisome to me. As long as the GDP continues to grow at or above the rate of increase in national debt, we sill not spend any more money proportionally paying off debt. If the federal government collapses financially, it will be because the US economy collapses, not because of the national debt.
Liberty- what I mean is that the democratic party does not support liberty. They will let you have an abortion , but not much else. If I had to choose between one social freedom, and a host of economic freedoms, I'd choose the economic freedoms.
Affirmative Action- Well, for "the diversity party" it is a pretty strange stance to have, and they are clearly wrong about it.
You don't have to be wrong all the time to be wrong. Making a generalized statement like the one I made is safe because I don't get a bunch of people offended at me. Instead, they just say "huh, that's weird".
But if you want a list, they are wrong about the following things:
Social Welfare (all the way from social security to medicare) Foreign Policy (admittedly the hard-line approach isn't much better) Fiscal Policy (monetary policy usually works better) Economic Protectionism (need I say more?) Affirmative Action (end inequality by treating different races differently? not a good policy) Liberty (but there aren't any better options out there, so what can you do?)
I'm sure there are some others, but generally they're not very likely to take a good approach to the problems of government.
Price is determined by the ratio of supply to demand. If gas is in short supply, it means that two things must happen. First, fewer people must use oil, second, oil producers must produce more oil. Raising oil prices has both of these effects. First, people conserve more in order to reduce their own costs (this happens right away and causes prices to increase dramatically). Second, oil producers or producers of alternate goods (hybrid cars, public transportation, what have you) find that higher prices mean that more resources may be cost-effectively developed. This means oil producers will try to squeeze more out of their wells, as well as building wells in locations that would not have been economical at the lower price.
If oil producers kept the prices low, it would mean that they would sell all of their oil, and there would be customers who would go without. In order to prevent long lines at gas stations, the government would have to attempt to ration gasoline. Moreover, since gas producers could not get a higher price, they would not try to develop more resources. The end result is a huge shortage. That's a lot worse than having to pay a little bit more for gas.
Strictly speaking, no theory in physics should ever be considered fact. This is because it is impossible to prove that they will be true in all cases. In mathematics, it is possible to prove in general that a theorem is true. This is because we define math. Unfortunately, since we do not know the fundamental nature of the universe (if there is such a thing), we can not really prove any theory in general. Moreover, I can not think of very many theories or natural laws that have been found to be true in all tested cases. With evolution, for example, it is possible to argue that through random mutation there is a small possibility that a species as a whole will become less adapted to it's environment. Of course, over long periods of time and with a large population, the odds of this happening becomes astronomically small.
Besides, very few fundamentalists argue that evolution does not happen. Instead, many have a problem with the teaching in schools that all life evolved from a single cell, which was born out of random chance from a primordial soup. Now, this theory for the beginning of life on earth is not well supported be evidence, mostly because it is supposed that it happened so long ago, and using fossilized specimens of early bacteria is not really convincing (who's to say these are even fossilized cells, they could be rock inclusion, etc.). Moreover, this theory is roughly akin to the theory of spontaneous generation, which was DISPROVED by Louie Pasteur. We have never shown that a cell can be spontaneously generated from it's baser components.
It would be wrong to teach evolution in schools as though it were fact. It would also be wrong to teach the theory of universal gravitation or Newtonian Physics as fact, since they have been proven to be untrue on very small scales, or at very high velocities. Proper use of vocabulary is important, and using definitions properly is fundamental to the development of students logical reasoning abilities. We can not change the word "theory" to "fact" simply because some people think the word theory is demeaning.
There's not really anything wrong with our patent laws if you measure them by the same standard all laws are measured. The legal system in general could always use improvement. Criminals get away with crimes every day because of legal loopholes, innocent people are put away for crimes that shouldn't be crimes. All in all, the U.S. legal system is about as effective as those that exist in any other country. Of course, it should be improved, but that doesn't mean we should do away with it while we try to come up with something better. The same applies to patent law and copyright law, just because they could be improved doesn't mean we should get rid of them while we come up with something new.
A lot of patents are granted every day, and only a few of them make it to front page of slashdot, those that do often do so because the are examples of the problems with the patent system. But to be sure, most patents are not bad patents. I think patent reform is important, but I also think promoting IP is necessary right now.
"the shareholders" who the fuck are you talking about? Are you some kind of moron? Let me spell it out for you. Due to automation and industrialization the future world economy will be based on ideas instead of commodities. This means that it is vitally important that the people who spend their time and money developing ideas (the number of people doing this will continue to grow) are compensated for their contributions to society.
Right not the US carries out most of the worlds R&D spending, so we have the most of gain from IP, but it will not always be this way. Any country wishing to industrialize and increase the well-being of it's citizens (I think this is just about any country) must recognize and enforce intellectual property rights. Failure to do so will mean a radically stifled economy and an end to economic growth.
Only a moron can not recognize the importance of these simple facts. Some kind of world-wide IP system is absolutely vital to the continued growth of the world economy. That means that IP is essential if citizens of the world wish to see continued improvements in quality of life. Failure to recognize IP is short-sighted and ignorant.
Trying to achieve some kind of global consensus on IP is a good thing. Most rational people who know what they are taking about (so you can disregard most of the opinions you read here on shashdot) understand that IP is vitally important to ensure that inventors and venture capitalists are properly compensated for their expended efforts and resources. I'm not saying that the US has the best system, but it is certainly on par with any other system I've seen implemented. It's not like we're suing governments in the WTO over their treatment of copyright and patents, we're just trying to help other countries enforce existing laws regarding IP. No harm there.
That makes the unwritten assumption that the patent litigant does not deserve a favorable ruling. If you assume that any given litigant has a 50% chance of being in the right (that is you assume that one party is more right than the other) then this software had no net effect. It certainly doesn't benefit benefit one member of society over others.
I don't see a good reason why this software should be considered detrimental.
Well, maybe they're thinking that they will use it to jam satellite communications, since that's what it is designed to do. You don't have to be a major world government to have access to satellite communications.
The article claims that a space elevator could be built for $10 Billion.
Are they crazy? The REPLACEMENT cost for a space shuttle is ~$2 Billion, that doesn't count the construction of infrastructure to support it or the R&D that went into designing it.
No structures of any appreciable size have ever been built from carbon nano-tubes. Assuming that they work, that means that the entire space-elevator would need to be developed starting with the materials themselves. Not to mention all of the infrastructure and construction processes would need to be built/desiged to support the construction effort in the first place.
Only a complete idiot could even dream that this approach would cost 10 times what the new moon-shot program is estimated to cost, much less 1/10. This website lacks even the faintest hint of substance and believability.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't they get it? The whole point of trying to track information about the kind of things people want to buy is to take the "unwanted" out of advertising. Do you think that they want annoy you and bombard you with useless information? Of course not, that wastes your time and their money, no one wants that. Sure you should be able to opt out of this kind of service, but it's strange to try to pull some kind of sinister motivation out of it. Obviously, they would sell you the device that monitors your garbage because you want this service. It's not like they're planning on covertly installing these devices in everyones garbage. I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?
The thing is that it really is illegal. You don't need to hire a lawyer to take them to small claims court, they would probably just pay you a settlement if you filed suit (since there's no way they'd win, no matter how many lawyers they hire). Companies just try that kind of bullshit in expecting that you won't fight it. Kind of like when they keep sending you magazines after your subscription has expired, and tell you that you have to pay for them (and send a debt collection agency after you). It's bullshit, and it won't stand up in small claims court (regardless of whether or not you can get a lawyer).
Of course, there are some times where the terms can change, like if an interest rate is variable based on the national rate, but these are pretty specific occasions, and they're explicitly laid out in the contract. The only other example I can think of is insurance, they can change their coverage in order to limit their own liability, but this is only within reasonable boundaries (though you wouldn't know it to look at the contract terms).
Another good example is the lease on my apartment. It says that they (the landlord) can enter the apartment at any time without notice, but that's definitely illegal, and it wouldn't hold up in court. I know there are a couple other things in my lease that I'm not really obligated to. Again, it's basically so that they can try to talk me into giving them money when I'm not really legally obligated to.
If you talk to them, and make it clear that you know you are not obligated to pay, they won't try to hold you to your supposed obligations (to do so would be a waste of money for them). But once you've paid, you can't get your money back. Just try to be a savvy consumer, avoid shady businesses like these (unfortunately just about all landlords, telecoms, and insurance providers are shady in this respect) and don't let them push you around if you have to deal with them.
One of the powers you refer to is the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This grants congress the power to make laws other than those the constitution specifically states it may make, so long as they promote the powers granted by constitution. The power to make such laws need not be specifically enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. This is how the Louisiana Purchase was made, despite the fact that the constitution does not specifically allow congress to purchase land from foreign governments.
The bill of rights (which is part of the constitution) is clearly a list of restrictions. They all say " the right to . . . shall not be infringed" or "congress shall make no law restricting . . ." or something similar restricting the power of the government.
.). The ability of congress to make a law regulating something does not need to be specifically enumerated in the constitution.
Also, under the elastic clause the congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary to carry out the powers and purposes of the constitution, so the congress may have the ability of regulate speech, so long as it promotes the purpose of the constitution, and does not violate the first amendment (I don't think that's really possible, but if it were. .
"Finally, I'm not so sure I like the RIAA any better than the Russian mafia. Either way, not one cent of my money is going to be given to the musicians."
This is a common myth perpetuated by musicians. The truth is, the record label gives them a cash advance for the rights to distribute their music, and promises royalties for each sale made. The catch is, the artist must "pay back" the cash advance from their royalties. If they don't sell enough to "pay back" the advance, they never see any royalties. But the fact is, they did get paid for the music, and they are entitled to royalties, assuming they sell enough music to recoup the labels investment in them. If they do not earn enough royalties, they can still keep the advance, but they will never get the rights to their music back (without buying them).
It's still definitely better to pay the labels than to pay the russian mafia.
"First of all, Russia IS a developed country."
I know that, that's why I said the rest of the developed world. So it seems that you can't read either.
Second of all, with reference to paying artists, I'll believe it when I see it, and why is it okay for someone other than the artist (or copyright holder) to determine how much a song is worth? Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
No, you don't understand. You are paying people in Russian to undermine the economies of the rest of the developed world. What's worse, you are doing it for no good reason. If you don't care about copyright law, you don't have to pay anyone anything to get this music. If you are buying this music from them, you are basically just giving money to some russian scam-artist asshole. There is no sense in it. It has nothing to do with my education, or the law.
You'd be better off throwing your money away than giving it to these assholes. Don't you understand that? The money you are spending in no way contributes the the production of the music you are buying. This is like if some shady character came to you house and offered to sell you your neighbors car for $200. Your neighbor didn't agree to it, so you might as well have just stolen the car yourself. At least that way that shady character didn't make off with your $200 in the process. Do you understand what I am saying.
If you have no respect for IP law, you have no reason to pay for this music. So please don't do it.
Why don't you just steal your own music. At least that way you aren't paying some Russian mafia asshole to steal it for you. What in gods name do you think you are paying for? If you have no intention of respecting American copyright law, at least don't pay some fucking Russian asshole for nothing.
What the hell is wrong with you? I can't believe this, the stupidity is appalling. I just keep getting more and more angry at the blatant stupidity of this and all other comments like it. I wish I could reach through my computer screen and slap you. Whatever you do, don't pay some russian assholes to steel some one else's IP. At least have the respect and common sense to steal it yourself. Why are you so stupid? Aaaaaah!
I'm going to go get some ice cream and try to calm down. Please, Please, Please don't give those assholes any more money.
"which you are confusing with the WWW" I'm not confusing anything with the WWW, you simply misread my post. They problem is not that I am confusing hypertext with WWW (I know well what both are), but that you are confusing HTML (which was invented in switzerland) with the WWW (which wasn't really invented in any one place).
"but he did invent the WWW as we know it" That's a nice way of saying that previous incarnations of WWW may not be recognizable today as such to a normal person. But of course, any standards you may set to differentiate between earlier technologies and the "modern" WWW are completely subjective and arbitrary. To say that the invention of one piece of this set of technologies constitutes creation of the WWW is absurd. The WWW was definitely not invented in switzerland. WWW is a collection of technologies and no one country may lay claim to it's creation.
There are so many things wrong with this is is not even funny. First of all, almost all pentagon research is done by academics, so it's really silly to say that academics run things better than the pentagon.
Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this. The invention of HTML has very little to do with the creation of the internet. First of all, hypertext was around long before HTML, and hypertext files could already be transmitted over the (existing) internet. This is merely another standard for turing text into page layouts, which happens to be in widespread use. It is a small part of the internet at best.
I'm not even going to address your last paragraph. You're so far out there that you probably have escape velocity.
It's important that you understand that the U.S. constitution guarantees rights specifically to U.S. citizens. If you wanted your own rights, you should've written your own constitution, or moved to the U.S. (it's better here anyway). Otherwise, you're just complaining about the incompetence of your own government, to whose governance you willingly submit. I have no sympathy for you.
There is a big difference between individual rights and general welfare. There's always some self-absorbed douche-bag in the government who thinks he knows what's good for you better than you do. At least with specifically enumerated individual rights, the courts can stop that asshole from infringing on your rights. This is only true in the US.
"Secondly, we already have organizations like the World Bank and other NGOs that work on bringing them direct aid for things like food, water, wells and shelter. If you read up on how much the World Bank accomplishes you'd be amazed. "
Well, considering that most the african countries the world bank lent money to are no better off today then they were 30 years ago (though they are now deeply in debt), I'd say that the direct aid was completely ineffective. But, that's just me. Other countries that were once impoverished like India, and China are definitely much better of today than they were then. The difference is trade and industrialization, direct aid has been almost entirely ineffective.
I don't think just giving away laptops will teach people to use computers. I mean, the software you're talking about them using is fairly sophisticated, and not always intuitively designed. It's silly to give away computers and then expect people to learn to use them through osmosis. A lot of people they're talking about simply do not have the time or the inclination to learn to use software when they should be out figuring out how to feed themselves.
Foreign aid to developing countries is completely upside-down. We think that we can give them education and political stability, in the mean time providing direct aid and the resources for prosperity will naturally develop. It doesn't work this way, education is a luxury that only wealthy people can afford. If we really want to help these countries, we need to eliminate trade barriers and allow them to sell us low-cost goods. This will allow them to develop infrastructure, resources, and as a result political stability. Then they will have the ability to educate their population and develop into prosperous nations. Just giving people laptops is meaningless, wasteful, and stupid.
Social Welfare-"Privatizing these programs is, however, far worse because its basically just a give away to investment firms." Privatizing social welfare is just a way of killing it which is politically feasible. Social security is not okay because I am forced to spend my money in a way that I do not have control over. This kind of government meddling in my life is not acceptable to me.
Foreign Policy-one name Jimmy Carter. As long as this is the kind of foreign policy democrats favor (and it is), it will never work. You can complain about Iran contra, but Regan did end the cold war, that brought an end to decades of meaningless aggression that created global instability and caused us to waste a lot of money on military spending that could've been spent elsewhere.
Economic Protectionism- whenever you hear someone say "we need to stop the outsourcing of jobs" that's protectionism. You hear republicans say this, but it is not the official party line. Of course, many democrats (like John Kerry) are avid supporters of free trade as well (though they are maybe not so open about it)
Fiscal policy-the national debt is not worrisome to me. As long as the GDP continues to grow at or above the rate of increase in national debt, we sill not spend any more money proportionally paying off debt. If the federal government collapses financially, it will be because the US economy collapses, not because of the national debt.
Liberty- what I mean is that the democratic party does not support liberty. They will let you have an abortion , but not much else. If I had to choose between one social freedom, and a host of economic freedoms, I'd choose the economic freedoms.
Affirmative Action- Well, for "the diversity party" it is a pretty strange stance to have, and they are clearly wrong about it.
You don't have to be wrong all the time to be wrong. Making a generalized statement like the one I made is safe because I don't get a bunch of people offended at me. Instead, they just say "huh, that's weird".
But if you want a list, they are wrong about the following things:
Social Welfare (all the way from social security to medicare)
Foreign Policy (admittedly the hard-line approach isn't much better)
Fiscal Policy (monetary policy usually works better)
Economic Protectionism (need I say more?)
Affirmative Action (end inequality by treating different races differently? not a good policy)
Liberty (but there aren't any better options out there, so what can you do?)
I'm sure there are some others, but generally they're not very likely to take a good approach to the problems of government.
Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that democrats are wrong.
Price is determined by the ratio of supply to demand. If gas is in short supply, it means that two things must happen. First, fewer people must use oil, second, oil producers must produce more oil. Raising oil prices has both of these effects. First, people conserve more in order to reduce their own costs (this happens right away and causes prices to increase dramatically). Second, oil producers or producers of alternate goods (hybrid cars, public transportation, what have you) find that higher prices mean that more resources may be cost-effectively developed. This means oil producers will try to squeeze more out of their wells, as well as building wells in locations that would not have been economical at the lower price.
If oil producers kept the prices low, it would mean that they would sell all of their oil, and there would be customers who would go without. In order to prevent long lines at gas stations, the government would have to attempt to ration gasoline. Moreover, since gas producers could not get a higher price, they would not try to develop more resources. The end result is a huge shortage. That's a lot worse than having to pay a little bit more for gas.
Strictly speaking, no theory in physics should ever be considered fact. This is because it is impossible to prove that they will be true in all cases. In mathematics, it is possible to prove in general that a theorem is true. This is because we define math. Unfortunately, since we do not know the fundamental nature of the universe (if there is such a thing), we can not really prove any theory in general. Moreover, I can not think of very many theories or natural laws that have been found to be true in all tested cases. With evolution, for example, it is possible to argue that through random mutation there is a small possibility that a species as a whole will become less adapted to it's environment. Of course, over long periods of time and with a large population, the odds of this happening becomes astronomically small.
Besides, very few fundamentalists argue that evolution does not happen. Instead, many have a problem with the teaching in schools that all life evolved from a single cell, which was born out of random chance from a primordial soup. Now, this theory for the beginning of life on earth is not well supported be evidence, mostly because it is supposed that it happened so long ago, and using fossilized specimens of early bacteria is not really convincing (who's to say these are even fossilized cells, they could be rock inclusion, etc.). Moreover, this theory is roughly akin to the theory of spontaneous generation, which was DISPROVED by Louie Pasteur. We have never shown that a cell can be spontaneously generated from it's baser components.
It would be wrong to teach evolution in schools as though it were fact. It would also be wrong to teach the theory of universal gravitation or Newtonian Physics as fact, since they have been proven to be untrue on very small scales, or at very high velocities. Proper use of vocabulary is important, and using definitions properly is fundamental to the development of students logical reasoning abilities. We can not change the word "theory" to "fact" simply because some people think the word theory is demeaning.
There's not really anything wrong with our patent laws if you measure them by the same standard all laws are measured. The legal system in general could always use improvement. Criminals get away with crimes every day because of legal loopholes, innocent people are put away for crimes that shouldn't be crimes. All in all, the U.S. legal system is about as effective as those that exist in any other country. Of course, it should be improved, but that doesn't mean we should do away with it while we try to come up with something better. The same applies to patent law and copyright law, just because they could be improved doesn't mean we should get rid of them while we come up with something new.
A lot of patents are granted every day, and only a few of them make it to front page of slashdot, those that do often do so because the are examples of the problems with the patent system. But to be sure, most patents are not bad patents. I think patent reform is important, but I also think promoting IP is necessary right now.
"the shareholders" who the fuck are you talking about? Are you some kind of moron? Let me spell it out for you. Due to automation and industrialization the future world economy will be based on ideas instead of commodities. This means that it is vitally important that the people who spend their time and money developing ideas (the number of people doing this will continue to grow) are compensated for their contributions to society.
Right not the US carries out most of the worlds R&D spending, so we have the most of gain from IP, but it will not always be this way. Any country wishing to industrialize and increase the well-being of it's citizens (I think this is just about any country) must recognize and enforce intellectual property rights. Failure to do so will mean a radically stifled economy and an end to economic growth.
Only a moron can not recognize the importance of these simple facts. Some kind of world-wide IP system is absolutely vital to the continued growth of the world economy. That means that IP is essential if citizens of the world wish to see continued improvements in quality of life. Failure to recognize IP is short-sighted and ignorant.
Trying to achieve some kind of global consensus on IP is a good thing. Most rational people who know what they are taking about (so you can disregard most of the opinions you read here on shashdot) understand that IP is vitally important to ensure that inventors and venture capitalists are properly compensated for their expended efforts and resources. I'm not saying that the US has the best system, but it is certainly on par with any other system I've seen implemented. It's not like we're suing governments in the WTO over their treatment of copyright and patents, we're just trying to help other countries enforce existing laws regarding IP. No harm there.
That makes the unwritten assumption that the patent litigant does not deserve a favorable ruling. If you assume that any given litigant has a 50% chance of being in the right (that is you assume that one party is more right than the other) then this software had no net effect. It certainly doesn't benefit benefit one member of society over others.
I don't see a good reason why this software should be considered detrimental.
Well, maybe they're thinking that they will use it to jam satellite communications, since that's what it is designed to do. You don't have to be a major world government to have access to satellite communications.
The article claims that a space elevator could be built for $10 Billion.
Are they crazy? The REPLACEMENT cost for a space shuttle is ~$2 Billion, that doesn't count the construction of infrastructure to support it or the R&D that went into designing it.
No structures of any appreciable size have ever been built from carbon nano-tubes. Assuming that they work, that means that the entire space-elevator would need to be developed starting with the materials themselves. Not to mention all of the infrastructure and construction processes would need to be built/desiged to support the construction effort in the first place.
Only a complete idiot could even dream that this approach would cost 10 times what the new moon-shot program is estimated to cost, much less 1/10. This website lacks even the faintest hint of substance and believability.