A group of 2-3 delegates per state to decide if new laws are OK or not, you say? That sounds like something that's already in place. I think it's called the Senate.
This is a great idea and I'm all for putting more accountability into government, but there is one big problem.
Things change. What is a good solution today may not be a good solution tomorrow, or it might still be a good solution but a better one might turn up. No one should be forced to do what they said they'll do four years ago regardless of what happened.
That given, they should have a damn good explanation of why they've changed their position.
Corporations are not sovereign states which means they don't get as many "get out of jail free" cards, and in particular the ones the government used in this case.
Corporate personhood might ensure that companies are still bound by the DMCA as a measure of last resort. It would be nice to see that bite a corporation on the ass for a change.
So just because they would treat us bad justifies us treating them bad. We're meant to be the good guys, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold others.
There is a reasonable middle ground. It's called a warrant. The government shows to a judge that they have sufficient evidence to show probable cause a) that the person did the crime, and b) that the person they're asking for information from has specific and relevant information to this case. If they can do this, then, and only then, they can get the information.
It would help if the judges involved have some backbone and actually demand the government makes a decent case.
I think the best way to stop earmarks turning up is to limit new bills to have one specific stated purpose and that all sections of the bill be directly related to that purpose. Then, if funding for a bridge to nowhere turns up in a bill about health care, it would be disallowed. And if someone tried to get a bill in which the stated purpose is build a bridge in Alaska that goes nowhere, no-one not from Alaska would vote for it.
As to public finance, this along with many other aspects of elections would be made more transparent if they were run by a body that is independent of political parties. The Australian Electoral Commission is the best such example I know (I'm Australian and don't know much about the electoral systems of countries other than Australia and America). The AEC determines electorate boundaries, determines the amount of public funding given (which is based on the number of votes a candidate receives, subject to certain minimum vote), and the registration of voters.
Why does evolution require a materialistic explanation of abiogenesis? Evolution is a process that living things undergo as a result of reproducing and competing for resources.
Consider the following three situations 1) self-replicating molecules are created somehow on Earth with no assistance from anything not of the earth. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today. 2) billions of years ago aliens visited the earth and saw the potential for life. They did a little chemistry and seeded the earth with simple self replicating molecules. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today. 3) billions of years ago God reached down his hand and seeded the earth with simple self replicating molecules. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today.
In how many of these situations has evolution occurred?
In each of these situations the explanation of abiogenesis is different, but once it is done evolution occurred.
Abiogenesis is an interesting question, and I am confident that one day a materialistic explanation will be found. But it is a separate question to that of evolution.
While there is still uncertainty as to how life began, this is not per se a problem for the theory of evolution. In addition to falsifiability, another important aspect of a scientific theory is that they state their realm of applicability. Evolution is a theory of how species change over time as a response to their environment. The existence of life is an axiom of evolution. It doesn't matter how life started, but once it does evolution comes into play.
I've always thought it was a clever marketing ploy. When the right wing is called the Liberal Democratic Party, what can the left wing call itself? Anything with communist or socialist is pretty much doomed to failure, but anything less sounds like just more of the same. Indeed the main opposition is the Democratic Party. Imagine the confusion that would have caused in Florida.
While not insider trading, this person has presumably broken other laws. The government should have prosecuted him under the laws that covered his actions, and not the laws they would like to cover his actions. If those laws are insufficient they should try and fix the laws, not prosecute him for breaking laws he hasn't.
I was made to give up my collection of lego (maybe.25 cubic meters worth) around the time I started high school. I really wish I still had it. It would make it so much easier to justify shelling out for some of the cool new stuff like the robot kits.
On the other hand bionicles are an abomination to the lego name.
I don't have an answer for what is the best way to solve this problem, but I do know a few things I won't do
1) I won't give up the principles I believe in.
2) I won't cheerfully, or even uncheerfully kill, harm, arrest, persecute, harass or deny freedoms I believe in to someone just because they disagree.
You could certainly claim a copyright on your description of the language. Perhaps even get a trade mark on some special words. But you shouldn't be able to stop people using it.
There are actually two independent senators now, Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders. Either one is just as capable of switching sides.
Also, as the Australian Senate is showing, when the balance is very narrow, some senators grow a pair and actually vote for what they think is best for their state, and not just their party.
This is actually part of why I like Star Trek. Rather than a world where things were better in days gone by (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda, etc), Star Trek is set in the good times. It was showing that people could keep on improving and making things better. This optimism about society is one of Star Trek's strongest points.
Re:the most important
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But that's the problem. When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it was protecting. You still break the law by circumventing it. Which is exactly why such laws are bad. You should be able to make a copy of something in the public domain, but you can't.
And don't rely on the record companies to let you off easy. It took mass negative media coverage for them to let a dead guy off the hook.
I would have thought that science, with its emphasis on observation of what actually happens and rational thought would fit in much better with a society that treats people equally than a religion that says you're not a worthy human being if you don't believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Not cool Optus. Not cool Telstra.
A group of 2-3 delegates per state to decide if new laws are OK or not, you say? That sounds like something that's already in place. I think it's called the Senate.
This is a great idea and I'm all for putting more accountability into government, but there is one big problem. Things change. What is a good solution today may not be a good solution tomorrow, or it might still be a good solution but a better one might turn up. No one should be forced to do what they said they'll do four years ago regardless of what happened. That given, they should have a damn good explanation of why they've changed their position.
It's also not so good for companies. Consider International Business Machines vs Santa Cruz Operations.
Corporations are not sovereign states which means they don't get as many "get out of jail free" cards, and in particular the ones the government used in this case. Corporate personhood might ensure that companies are still bound by the DMCA as a measure of last resort. It would be nice to see that bite a corporation on the ass for a change.
eBay already has their own internal payment system identical to PayPal in every way. It's called PayPal.
So just because they would treat us bad justifies us treating them bad. We're meant to be the good guys, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold others.
There is a reasonable middle ground. It's called a warrant. The government shows to a judge that they have sufficient evidence to show probable cause a) that the person did the crime, and b) that the person they're asking for information from has specific and relevant information to this case. If they can do this, then, and only then, they can get the information. It would help if the judges involved have some backbone and actually demand the government makes a decent case.
Of course, this is still a lot better than what happens to a space shuttle that has problems on re-entry.
I think the best way to stop earmarks turning up is to limit new bills to have one specific stated purpose and that all sections of the bill be directly related to that purpose. Then, if funding for a bridge to nowhere turns up in a bill about health care, it would be disallowed. And if someone tried to get a bill in which the stated purpose is build a bridge in Alaska that goes nowhere, no-one not from Alaska would vote for it. As to public finance, this along with many other aspects of elections would be made more transparent if they were run by a body that is independent of political parties. The Australian Electoral Commission is the best such example I know (I'm Australian and don't know much about the electoral systems of countries other than Australia and America). The AEC determines electorate boundaries, determines the amount of public funding given (which is based on the number of votes a candidate receives, subject to certain minimum vote), and the registration of voters.
Why does evolution require a materialistic explanation of abiogenesis? Evolution is a process that living things undergo as a result of reproducing and competing for resources.
Consider the following three situations
1) self-replicating molecules are created somehow on Earth with no assistance from anything not of the earth. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today.
2) billions of years ago aliens visited the earth and saw the potential for life. They did a little chemistry and seeded the earth with simple self replicating molecules. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today.
3) billions of years ago God reached down his hand and seeded the earth with simple self replicating molecules. These develop into more and more complicated forms until we reach life as we know it today.
In how many of these situations has evolution occurred?
In each of these situations the explanation of abiogenesis is different, but once it is done evolution occurred.
Abiogenesis is an interesting question, and I am confident that one day a materialistic explanation will be found. But it is a separate question to that of evolution.
While there is still uncertainty as to how life began, this is not per se a problem for the theory of evolution. In addition to falsifiability, another important aspect of a scientific theory is that they state their realm of applicability. Evolution is a theory of how species change over time as a response to their environment. The existence of life is an axiom of evolution. It doesn't matter how life started, but once it does evolution comes into play.
I've always thought it was a clever marketing ploy. When the right wing is called the Liberal Democratic Party, what can the left wing call itself? Anything with communist or socialist is pretty much doomed to failure, but anything less sounds like just more of the same. Indeed the main opposition is the Democratic Party. Imagine the confusion that would have caused in Florida.
While not insider trading, this person has presumably broken other laws. The government should have prosecuted him under the laws that covered his actions, and not the laws they would like to cover his actions. If those laws are insufficient they should try and fix the laws, not prosecute him for breaking laws he hasn't.
I was made to give up my collection of lego (maybe .25 cubic meters worth) around the time I started high school. I really wish I still had it. It would make it so much easier to justify shelling out for some of the cool new stuff like the robot kits.
On the other hand bionicles are an abomination to the lego name.
I'm wondering just which state is not taking part in this scheme? And could kids just claim to be from there to avoid the list.
I have to say that I enjoyed The Nietzsche Family Circus.
Here is another story on the matter.
I don't have an answer for what is the best way to solve this problem, but I do know a few things I won't do 1) I won't give up the principles I believe in. 2) I won't cheerfully, or even uncheerfully kill, harm, arrest, persecute, harass or deny freedoms I believe in to someone just because they disagree.
You could certainly claim a copyright on your description of the language. Perhaps even get a trade mark on some special words. But you shouldn't be able to stop people using it.
There are actually two independent senators now, Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders. Either one is just as capable of switching sides. Also, as the Australian Senate is showing, when the balance is very narrow, some senators grow a pair and actually vote for what they think is best for their state, and not just their party.
This is actually part of why I like Star Trek. Rather than a world where things were better in days gone by (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda, etc), Star Trek is set in the good times. It was showing that people could keep on improving and making things better. This optimism about society is one of Star Trek's strongest points.
But that's the problem. When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it was protecting. You still break the law by circumventing it. Which is exactly why such laws are bad. You should be able to make a copy of something in the public domain, but you can't. And don't rely on the record companies to let you off easy. It took mass negative media coverage for them to let a dead guy off the hook.
I would have thought that science, with its emphasis on observation of what actually happens and rational thought would fit in much better with a society that treats people equally than a religion that says you're not a worthy human being if you don't believe.
Well, all the stuff that's actually on the world, as opposed to floating way up above it.