I don't know the first thing about GM foods, except that it's different. What I don't like is the way it's being done. First is the patent issue. I don't care how much money was spent on the research. Life forms should NOT be patentable. No comprimise, never. We don't it need so badly that we will go extinct without it. Fair distribution and no war are all that's necessary to feed all of us. Present GM research is being done to increase profits for very few companies, nothing else, so, in that context, it's just not needed. Second is the way they're trying to force this upon us without warning and without labeling. I might not care if I'm eating GM food, but I do want to know if it is GM. This just another case of ignoring potential risks to help the bottom line. If they want to go nuts with GE, let 'em. Just don't try to sneak it in through the back door. Let me make the decision to buy it or not.
This might be a bit more up to date. I didn't really check into it, but it seems to be running fairly well. They're growing some exotic plants in there, so I could see where climate control might get expensive. I didn't see the numbers, but generally, domes are very efficient, so costs might be reasonable. In general, the thing looks pretty cool, and it might be making money.
You are aware who makes the rules, right? Hint: It's not the EFF or anybody remotely like them. Changing rules like these in any logical(non-corrupt) way would require massive public attention and input. With the economic interest in maintaining the status quo, I doubt there will be any significant change anytime soon.
You can build a pretty big geodesic dome in a day or two. It might not take that long to cover 50 acres. Transparent panels will fix the sunlight problem. Minerals and fertilizer can be brougth in through...the door?:-) I've seen some fairly large greenhouses(not 50 acres, obviously) used for growing flowers, but the idea is there. What would really be cool is some kind of floating farms out in the middle of the ocean. You know, A gigantic inflatable swimming pool half filled with dirt. Yes, no, maybe?
...I guess that makes a self-employed guy like me an "established publisher".
Ok...that certainly explains your opposition to P2P. It's the competition you don't want. Many copyright battles were publisher vs. publisher, so it appears that P2P has now entered the fray, and is ready to knock the whole publishing house of cards down. Regular publishing houses will always get business from creators who don't want to deal directly with the public, but it's going to be reduced to a niche business. That's a good thing. Publishers shouldn't have the political power they have now.
I'm not convinced that he's a troll. A drone maybe...:-) Either way, I'm glad he's carrying on the discussion. It's very enlightening. The sad thing is hearing the kids these days sounding just like my father. Beats the hell out of waiting for the google news page to update. And I'm leaning how to type and cut and paste HTML code where appropriate.
The only real threat is to the established publishers. P2P only takes away their monopoly. That is a good thing. Once they get a contract, the industry could care less what happens to the author. They try to make it sound like the author won't survive without them. Many authors get paid when they sign, so "unauthorized distribution" really doesn't affect them as much as the industry. What the industry doesn't like is "unauthorized distributors" or worse yet "self distribution".
The problem is that P2P is *too* good for distribution...
Yuo're right. It's the best thing for all concerned.(except the industry, of course) It gets the creators out from under the thumb of a horrible, greedy, monopolistic distibution system, and puts the power where it belongs, with the creator. If he/she doesn't want it distributed, he/she can keep their ideas to themselves. It they think it's more profitable to suppress their ideas than to risk "unauthorized distribution", then that's what they should do. It you publish an idea, you shouldn't be allowed to take it back.
Absolutely not, but I am convinced that free and easy downloads are at odds with the ability to sell those same files.
This is still a new concept. Give it time. With the appropriate changes in the law, or a revolution as the case may be, it will work itself out. Despite your doomsday opinion, more and more people are finding success with the internet as their distribution model. Try to remember, piracy is not the real issue here. The right to publish and who has it is what's at stake. Established publishers are trying to maintain their monopoly and force creators to give up all their their rights in order to be published. Computers and the internet can take that all away in a minute. It is necessary to understand that now anyone can distribute their work themselves, and that is a GREAT thing. Tearing down current copyright law can only help. No more DMCA, broadcast flags, crippled tech (that's the one killing me) to deal with. We can then get on with real research and creation instead of wasting time dealing with licenses. Also, don't waste your time try to "frame" my question. It only requires a simple "yes or no". And only one of them is the correct answer. It shouldn't matter where it came from.
The problem with that theory is that eventually you need some sort of backhaul to the internet itself.
My idea is a bit more P2P oriented, not getting access to cnn.com. I thought that the idea behind the internet was that anyone could be a host. I'm aware that it's just not practical yet, but it does seem like a worthwhile goal. We may not ever get wireless internet per se, but some sort of wireless P2P accross the continent seems possible.
The idea that man could fly was considered "dumb" if not outright insane at one time. Are you really that convinced that there is only one way to do business? or that money is the only way to motivate people? That would mean we would have to maitain a certain level of poverty, so that poor people will be motivated to work. Believe me, that's no way to run a circus, or a planet for that matter.
... people should not be encouraged by this to behave in an illegal and unethical/immoral manner.
If we followed that logic, the Americans would still be bowwing to the queen. They would still have slaves (forced to ride in the back of the bus, of course). They would still have alcohol prohibition. What freedoms we enjoy now were mostly brought about by "lawbreakers".
Did it ever, ever occur to you that you might be wrong? How in the world do you think Microsoft got to be the biggest software maker? Same goes for Adobe Do you honestly think they saturated the markets with SALES of their product? What do you think brought down the Soviet Unoin? How do you think the Americans finally got rid of Prohibition? In fact, how do you think American business, especially the entertainment business, got started? Did you ever see the numbers from a few years ago during the height of the downloading scene? Record companies were showing record profits. Sales AND downloading decreased about the same time. Piracy has always been a minor problem for Apple. What do they have? Maybe five percent of the market? Get your head out of you...er...the sand, and at least make a feeble effert to understand that maybe, just maybe, your business model is obsolete, and that you should adapt to the "new world order" of virtually free internet publishing. I find it really weird that you young kids cling to tightly to 19th century ideas. I always hoped that people younger than me would be a little more enlightened than me on how to treat others.
By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's.
There would be lots of "island hopping" through lots of people's computers, but it can be done using the 802 thingy(?). It would have lots of latency, but it can be workable if people think it's important enough. All the ISP's are owned by not so small companies that are more than willing to do the government's bidding. Anyone trying to protect the customer's rights is doing it for show (to get more customers) and if their business licenses came under any kind of threat, they will cave. The wireless I'm talking about would be very low power and very mobile (think mobile scud launchers). We CAN do something about it. We just have to want to, and we need lots of people to do so. The ONLY thing stopping us is our attitude.
The Chinese have such firewalls installed at every ISP that leaves the country.
That's why it's so important to develope real wireless solutions. If the net is ever going to be truly free, we must cut out corporate control of the "wire". Under the current set up, the multinationals are saying, "All your ISP are belong to us". Same goes for the data going through those ISP's. Truly mobile and wireless access will be the only way to bring about absolute anonymity and privacy to the users. Rapidly changing IP addresses during a session (like a spread spectrum kind of thing) would be cool also.
As long as China supplies lots of cheap labor and plays ball with the world's corporations nobody's going to impose anything on them. The world's governments could care less about human rights and all that. They just want cheap stuff and big profits.
It just means the American gov't is a bit more pragmatic. Scream, rant, and rave all you want. Just don't forget your "obligations" on the 15th of April. Pretty soon, the only "information" outlets will be Fox and Clear Channel anyway.
Actually, it was satellite tv. Specifically, when Ted Turner leased some channels on Russian satellites. And more importantly it was bootleg (pirate) dishes in the country. Kind of amazing that piracy thing. A lot of people and organizations sure do benefit from it. If it wasn't for "theft of services", there would still be TWO evil empires on the planet.
The solution will be technological and will remove the recording industry from their position as the gatekeepers of music.
Please note that the whole entertainment industry and the gov't are in a very simbiotic(?) relationship. The industry want to stay in business, and thg gov't needs the industry gatekeepers to keep undesirable thoughts off the tv or radio. It's like those little birds picking bugs off the back of an elephant.
Slashdot Mirror
If you where not a AC, I'd call you a Karma Slut. Not just "whore", but SLUT.
The difference being is that a whore gets paid.
I don't know the first thing about GM foods, except that it's different. What I don't like is the way it's being done.
First is the patent issue. I don't care how much money was spent on the research. Life forms should NOT be patentable. No comprimise, never. We don't it need so badly that we will go extinct without it. Fair distribution and no war are all that's necessary to feed all of us. Present GM research is being done to increase profits for very few companies, nothing else, so, in that context, it's just not needed.
Second is the way they're trying to force this upon us without warning and without labeling. I might not care if I'm eating GM food, but I do want to know if it is GM. This just another case of ignoring potential risks to help the bottom line.
If they want to go nuts with GE, let 'em. Just don't try to sneak it in through the back door. Let me make the decision to buy it or not.
This might be a bit more up to date. I didn't really check into it, but it seems to be running fairly well. They're growing some exotic plants in there, so I could see where climate control might get expensive. I didn't see the numbers, but generally, domes are very efficient, so costs might be reasonable. In general, the thing looks pretty cool, and it might be making money.
Change the rules so that...
You are aware who makes the rules, right? Hint: It's not the EFF or anybody remotely like them. Changing rules like these in any logical(non-corrupt) way would require massive public attention and input. With the economic interest in maintaining the status quo, I doubt there will be any significant change anytime soon.
You can build a pretty big geodesic dome in a day or two. It might not take that long to cover 50 acres. Transparent panels will fix the sunlight problem. Minerals and fertilizer can be brougth in through...the door? :-) I've seen some fairly large greenhouses(not 50 acres, obviously) used for growing flowers, but the idea is there. What would really be cool is some kind of floating farms out in the middle of the ocean. You know, A gigantic inflatable swimming pool half filled with dirt. Yes, no, maybe?
My only complaint was the poor quality of the buds.
Really, man. If you want good buds, you have to go to Oaxaca, at least.
But if you steal an iPod, is it theft or just infringement? :-)
...I guess that makes a self-employed guy like me an "established publisher".
Ok...that certainly explains your opposition to P2P. It's the competition you don't want. Many copyright battles were publisher vs. publisher, so it appears that P2P has now entered the fray, and is ready to knock the whole publishing house of cards down. Regular publishing houses will always get business from creators who don't want to deal directly with the public, but it's going to be reduced to a niche business. That's a good thing. Publishers shouldn't have the political power they have now.
I'm not convinced that he's a troll. A drone maybe...:-) Either way, I'm glad he's carrying on the discussion. It's very enlightening. The sad thing is hearing the kids these days sounding just like my father. Beats the hell out of waiting for the google news page to update. And I'm leaning how to type and cut and paste HTML code where appropriate.
The only real threat is to the established publishers. P2P only takes away their monopoly. That is a good thing. Once they get a contract, the industry could care less what happens to the author. They try to make it sound like the author won't survive without them. Many authors get paid when they sign, so "unauthorized distribution" really doesn't affect them as much as the industry. What the industry doesn't like is "unauthorized distributors" or worse yet "self distribution".
The problem is that P2P is *too* good for distribution...
Yuo're right. It's the best thing for all concerned.(except the industry, of course) It gets the creators out from under the thumb of a horrible, greedy, monopolistic distibution system, and puts the power where it belongs, with the creator. If he/she doesn't want it distributed, he/she can keep their ideas to themselves. It they think it's more profitable to suppress their ideas than to risk "unauthorized distribution", then that's what they should do. It you publish an idea, you shouldn't be allowed to take it back.
Just more proof that crack addiction truly is a profitable industry!
It is for the dealer...no?
Absolutely not, but I am convinced that free and easy downloads are at odds with the ability to sell those same files.
This is still a new concept. Give it time. With the appropriate changes in the law, or a revolution as the case may be, it will work itself out. Despite your doomsday opinion, more and more people are finding success with the internet as their distribution model. Try to remember, piracy is not the real issue here. The right to publish and who has it is what's at stake. Established publishers are trying to maintain their monopoly and force creators to give up all their their rights in order to be published. Computers and the internet can take that all away in a minute. It is necessary to understand that now anyone can distribute their work themselves, and that is a GREAT thing. Tearing down current copyright law can only help. No more DMCA, broadcast flags, crippled tech (that's the one killing me) to deal with. We can then get on with real research and creation instead of wasting time dealing with licenses. Also, don't waste your time try to "frame" my question. It only requires a simple "yes or no". And only one of them is the correct answer. It shouldn't matter where it came from.
The problem with that theory is that eventually you need some sort of backhaul to the internet itself.
My idea is a bit more P2P oriented, not getting access to cnn.com. I thought that the idea behind the internet was that anyone could be a host. I'm aware that it's just not practical yet, but it does seem like a worthwhile goal. We may not ever get wireless internet per se, but some sort of wireless P2P accross the continent seems possible.
The idea that man could fly was considered "dumb" if not outright insane at one time. Are you really that convinced that there is only one way to do business? or that money is the only way to motivate people? That would mean we would have to maitain a certain level of poverty, so that poor people will be motivated to work. Believe me, that's no way to run a circus, or a planet for that matter.
...so his meal will be a write-off, too.
Does that include the three martinis?
... people should not be encouraged by this to behave in an illegal and unethical/immoral manner.
If we followed that logic, the Americans would still be bowwing to the queen. They would still have slaves (forced to ride in the back of the bus, of course). They would still have alcohol prohibition. What freedoms we enjoy now were mostly brought about by "lawbreakers".
Did it ever, ever occur to you that you might be wrong? How in the world do you think Microsoft got to be the biggest software maker? Same goes for Adobe Do you honestly think they saturated the markets with SALES of their product? What do you think brought down the Soviet Unoin? How do you think the Americans finally got rid of Prohibition? In fact, how do you think American business, especially the entertainment business, got started? Did you ever see the numbers from a few years ago during the height of the downloading scene? Record companies were showing record profits. Sales AND downloading decreased about the same time. Piracy has always been a minor problem for Apple. What do they have? Maybe five percent of the market? Get your head out of you...er...the sand, and at least make a feeble effert to understand that maybe, just maybe, your business model is obsolete, and that you should adapt to the "new world order" of virtually free internet publishing. I find it really weird that you young kids cling to tightly to 19th century ideas. I always hoped that people younger than me would be a little more enlightened than me on how to treat others.
By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's.
There would be lots of "island hopping" through lots of people's computers, but it can be done using the 802 thingy(?). It would have lots of latency, but it can be workable if people think it's important enough. All the ISP's are owned by not so small companies that are more than willing to do the government's bidding. Anyone trying to protect the customer's rights is doing it for show (to get more customers) and if their business licenses came under any kind of threat, they will cave. The wireless I'm talking about would be very low power and very mobile (think mobile scud launchers). We CAN do something about it. We just have to want to, and we need lots of people to do so. The ONLY thing stopping us is our attitude.
They learned their lesson from Watergate. Now they are sure to "burn the tapes".
Is that glassnost or peristroika? Ignore the spelling. Just answer the question. Thanks in advanced.
The Chinese have such firewalls installed at every ISP that leaves the country.
That's why it's so important to develope real wireless solutions. If the net is ever going to be truly free, we must cut out corporate control of the "wire". Under the current set up, the multinationals are saying, "All your ISP are belong to us". Same goes for the data going through those ISP's. Truly mobile and wireless access will be the only way to bring about absolute anonymity and privacy to the users. Rapidly changing IP addresses during a session (like a spread spectrum kind of thing) would be cool also.
As long as China supplies lots of cheap labor and plays ball with the world's corporations nobody's going to impose anything on them. The world's governments could care less about human rights and all that. They just want cheap stuff and big profits.
It just means the American gov't is a bit more pragmatic. Scream, rant, and rave all you want. Just don't forget your "obligations" on the 15th of April. Pretty soon, the only "information" outlets will be Fox and Clear Channel anyway.
Actually, it was satellite tv. Specifically, when Ted Turner leased some channels on Russian satellites. And more importantly it was bootleg (pirate) dishes in the country. Kind of amazing that piracy thing. A lot of people and organizations sure do benefit from it. If it wasn't for "theft of services", there would still be TWO evil empires on the planet.
The solution will be technological and will remove the recording industry from their position as the gatekeepers of music.
Please note that the whole entertainment industry and the gov't are in a very simbiotic(?) relationship. The industry want to stay in business, and thg gov't needs the industry gatekeepers to keep undesirable thoughts off the tv or radio. It's like those little birds picking bugs off the back of an elephant.