If the chip only carries an encrypted photo of myself, then thieves can't steal any information that they couldn't get by looking in my general direction. But it does make the passport much more difficult to forge, and more difficult to use fraudulently. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Clearly, the street racer is guilty of a crime regardless of how fast your family member was going...
Whatever point you are trying to make is undermined by your mixing of concepts and scenarios here. Insurance companies payouts aren't dependant on somebody comitting a crime. In a case like you describe, the proper course of action is, as always, to sue the insurance company. As part of the civil trial (assuming no settlement), the jury will apportion responsibility, let's say 90% street racer, 10% minor speeder, and the award will be prorated on that basis. Who was or was not committing a crime is irrelevant.
In the case of a criminal prosecution, on the other hand, whether the minor speeder was speeding is irrelevant as to the street racer's conduct, but then, the insurance company has nothing to say in the criminal case either.
The circumstances under which the incident occured have absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to force somebody to incriminate themselves. If some criminals need to go free in order to protect this right for innocent people, then so be it.
This isn't a Fifth Amendment issue, which applies to testimony. This is straightforward evidence. Are you seriously arguing that it is somehow improper to execute search warrants against criminal suspects for directly relevant evidence for which probable cause exists? Seriously?
They wrote that stuff into the US constitution and made it very difficult to change for a good reason.
I do not think the Constitution says what you think it says. Try reading it.
especially true in the cost of healthcare. It seems the more efficient and the more effective medicine gets the more the savings are being passed on to me.
Quite true - the costs of almost any given medication or test have declined. It's just that the sheer quantity of health care available for consumption has exploded. You're now able to buy healthcare goods and services that simply weren't on the market at any price a decade or two ago. If you want your costs to remain constant, you are perfectly free to make your consumption constant as well, but of course most people choose not to do so.
I'm curioust what your attorney friend thought. Here's my take:
Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects"
Yes, just the same as, say, a bundle of files in your back seat. Subject to the warrant requirement.
is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand?
Of course not.
Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence...
It could be, if you have reason to know that it is probably evidence.
do I have a right to smash up my own car (computer, books, diary, etc.)?
Yes, unless of course you are doing it deliberately to destroy evidence. Much in the same way that you can shred all your personal files every day, until you are notified that you are being sued and those documents will be discoverable.
Where does the court's right to information about me end and my rights to my own property and information begin?
It begins and ends with probable cause, and almost always, a warrant.
Is it safe to say "none of your damned business" any more?
Yes, unless there is a warrant or a subpoena for that information. You may want to be more polite about it, though.
Could this be a viral marketing gimmick? I couldn't help but notice that the "o" in the company logo (that is also the website icon) looks rather familiar in shape and color to the Xbox 360 spiral.
I agree with what you said as to the moon; however, there are asteroids that have been identified that are quite concentrated in various metals. If we could come up with a technically feasible way to move some of the more modest ones into a high earth orbit (perhaps a good application for a thermonuclear engine), they could even be processed much closer to home. A bonus if we can "capture" and process near-Earth asteroids that threaten our existence every so often.
Humans create.
Our creativity is one of the main reasons we are the dominant species on this planet. That creativity bubbles within us (more in some than others to be sure!) and wants to get out.
True - left alone, humans will create. For themselves. But creating a market in ideas is the only way to have a mechanism that can easily compensate people for creating things of value to others. I think your example of OSS software is illustrative in this regard. There are no shortage of projects for popular new technologies - or flashy things that people get excited to work on - or high-profile projects that garner recognition and respect. But who is out there volunteering to create programs of very narrow interest and high complexity? Why is there no real OSS equivalent to AutoCAD? Or Adobe CS2? Why are there a thousand different window managers while it took 10 years for a functional equivalent to MS Access 95?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I seem to recall that almost all airliner doors open inward. Thus, the higher cabin pressure exerts an outward-pressing force that holds the door in place when at altitude.
That sounds like alot of force. How come planes don't just implode like a sub that strays too deep?
The plane wouldn't implode, it would explode, because the pressure is on the inside pushing out, the opposite of a submarine. Also, the pressures are much, much less. Now a sub is much sturdier than a plane, but remember that a sub hull withstands hundreds of pounds of pressure per square inch of hull! It takes a ludricous amount of pressure to crush a sub hull. The aircraft doesn't gain as much from the benefit of being a tube, but because the force is spread out pretty equally, the aluminum structure and the skin is easily able to hold it all together.
Also, not to be a wiseass, but how do skydivers get out of a plane?
First, they typically fly in aircraft with no doors at all. They also jump from much lower altitudes - usually no more than 15,000 feet - than the typical cruising height of a jetliner, around 30,000 - 40,000 feet. It is possible to jump from that height, but you need special breathing and temperature apparatus to do so.
Harassment is harassment, whether it takes place in person or over the net. Stalking is stalking, online or not. The laws we have are already adequate to cover these scenarios. The only problem, of course, is identification, but no law will help solve that.
Any idea can literally be known by every living human and this doesn't preclude the next-born to also know or have this idea, and in no way impacts all those that already have the idea.
Yes, that's true - ideas are nonrival goods. But they are not free goods, and they do roughly obey the law of supply and demand. The question becomes how to create incentives for the production of ideas, if the ideas cannot be valuable to the idea-generator.
That's why they are also moving to a first-to-file model. Prior art no longer matters
That's not correct. Prior art still matters, because it goes to the very patentability of whatever it is one is trying to patent. Something that is not novel is simply not patentable at all. The change that "first to file" would make is that in the case of a novel patent, the patent would be awarded to whoever makes the first filing, and not whoever is the first to actually invent it.
For example, presume that X completes a prototype microwidget in 2005, and Y independently completes a working microwidget in 2006. In 2007, two patents for microwidgets are filed - first by Y in June, then by X in July. Under our current system, X would (assuming he can prove it) be awarded the patent because he was first to invent the microwidget. Under the changed system, Y would be awarded the patent, because Y filed first. Under either system, if Z challenges the patent and demonstrates that microwidgets have actually been around for years, the patent is invalid for not being novel.
In case you don't read upthread, you can buy brand new keyboards with the CAPSLOCK and CTRL keys swapped. And even better, they're high-quality buckling spring keyboards, direct descendents of the IBM Model M. http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/linux101.html
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with this site, but I love my Model M keyboards.
You can still get these keyboards if you want! And even better - they are the direct descendents of the legendary IBM Model M in all its massive, spring-buckling goodness.
They even have two designs - one with just the CapsLock and LCtrl swapped, and one that also swaps the backtick and escape keys.
So, since you can get these if you want, I really don't know what the submitter is whining about. I guess s/he is just some kind of megalomaniacal totalitarian bent on forcing everyone to use the One True Keyboard or something.
Yup, mea culpa! Realized that right after I posted. In my defense, I constantly have the Sixteenth Amendment on my mind, because I think about it twice every month when I look at my FICA withholdings. Egads!
right along with electors being chosen by popular vote (it ought to be done by the state legislatures).
Technically, it is being done by the state legislatures. It's just that all the legislatures have decided to base their decision on a popular vote. There's no federal or constitutional requirement that they hold a vote, though.
Slashdot Mirror
If the chip only carries an encrypted photo of myself, then thieves can't steal any information that they couldn't get by looking in my general direction. But it does make the passport much more difficult to forge, and more difficult to use fraudulently. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Clearly, the street racer is guilty of a crime regardless of how fast your family member was going...
Whatever point you are trying to make is undermined by your mixing of concepts and scenarios here. Insurance companies payouts aren't dependant on somebody comitting a crime. In a case like you describe, the proper course of action is, as always, to sue the insurance company. As part of the civil trial (assuming no settlement), the jury will apportion responsibility, let's say 90% street racer, 10% minor speeder, and the award will be prorated on that basis. Who was or was not committing a crime is irrelevant.
In the case of a criminal prosecution, on the other hand, whether the minor speeder was speeding is irrelevant as to the street racer's conduct, but then, the insurance company has nothing to say in the criminal case either.
The circumstances under which the incident occured have absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to force somebody to incriminate themselves. If some criminals need to go free in order to protect this right for innocent people, then so be it.
This isn't a Fifth Amendment issue, which applies to testimony. This is straightforward evidence. Are you seriously arguing that it is somehow improper to execute search warrants against criminal suspects for directly relevant evidence for which probable cause exists? Seriously?
They wrote that stuff into the US constitution and made it very difficult to change for a good reason.
I do not think the Constitution says what you think it says. Try reading it.
especially true in the cost of healthcare. It seems the more efficient and the more effective medicine gets the more the savings are being passed on to me.
Quite true - the costs of almost any given medication or test have declined. It's just that the sheer quantity of health care available for consumption has exploded. You're now able to buy healthcare goods and services that simply weren't on the market at any price a decade or two ago. If you want your costs to remain constant, you are perfectly free to make your consumption constant as well, but of course most people choose not to do so.
Everything is horrible
Really really really terrible
I'm really depressed
I'm really downtrodden
The whole world is doomed
We're all gonna die
25,472 people die every single minute
Seventeen hundred and fifty people just died
Cancer
Death
Aids
Inflation
Taxes
George Bush
Hell
Satan
Cancer of the face
Cancer of the colon
Cancer of the wrist
and John Denver on compact disc!
I'm curioust what your attorney friend thought. Here's my take:
Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects"
Yes, just the same as, say, a bundle of files in your back seat. Subject to the warrant requirement.
is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand?
Of course not.
Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence...
It could be, if you have reason to know that it is probably evidence.
do I have a right to smash up my own car (computer, books, diary, etc.)?
Yes, unless of course you are doing it deliberately to destroy evidence. Much in the same way that you can shred all your personal files every day, until you are notified that you are being sued and those documents will be discoverable.
Where does the court's right to information about me end and my rights to my own property and information begin?
It begins and ends with probable cause, and almost always, a warrant.
Is it safe to say "none of your damned business" any more?
Yes, unless there is a warrant or a subpoena for that information. You may want to be more polite about it, though.
Could this be a viral marketing gimmick? I couldn't help but notice that the "o" in the company logo (that is also the website icon) looks rather familiar in shape and color to the Xbox 360 spiral.
I agree with what you said as to the moon; however, there are asteroids that have been identified that are quite concentrated in various metals. If we could come up with a technically feasible way to move some of the more modest ones into a high earth orbit (perhaps a good application for a thermonuclear engine), they could even be processed much closer to home. A bonus if we can "capture" and process near-Earth asteroids that threaten our existence every so often.
There is no moon.
I, for one, welcome our new military-industrial overlords.
True - left alone, humans will create. For themselves. But creating a market in ideas is the only way to have a mechanism that can easily compensate people for creating things of value to others. I think your example of OSS software is illustrative in this regard. There are no shortage of projects for popular new technologies - or flashy things that people get excited to work on - or high-profile projects that garner recognition and respect. But who is out there volunteering to create programs of very narrow interest and high complexity? Why is there no real OSS equivalent to AutoCAD? Or Adobe CS2? Why are there a thousand different window managers while it took 10 years for a functional equivalent to MS Access 95?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I seem to recall that almost all airliner doors open inward. Thus, the higher cabin pressure exerts an outward-pressing force that holds the door in place when at altitude.
That sounds like alot of force. How come planes don't just implode like a sub that strays too deep?
The plane wouldn't implode, it would explode, because the pressure is on the inside pushing out, the opposite of a submarine. Also, the pressures are much, much less. Now a sub is much sturdier than a plane, but remember that a sub hull withstands hundreds of pounds of pressure per square inch of hull! It takes a ludricous amount of pressure to crush a sub hull. The aircraft doesn't gain as much from the benefit of being a tube, but because the force is spread out pretty equally, the aluminum structure and the skin is easily able to hold it all together.
Also, not to be a wiseass, but how do skydivers get out of a plane?
First, they typically fly in aircraft with no doors at all. They also jump from much lower altitudes - usually no more than 15,000 feet - than the typical cruising height of a jetliner, around 30,000 - 40,000 feet. It is possible to jump from that height, but you need special breathing and temperature apparatus to do so.
Harassment is harassment, whether it takes place in person or over the net. Stalking is stalking, online or not. The laws we have are already adequate to cover these scenarios. The only problem, of course, is identification, but no law will help solve that.
There's no "prior art" requirement for trademarks.
Iced tea.
Any idea can literally be known by every living human and this doesn't preclude the next-born to also know or have this idea, and in no way impacts all those that already have the idea.
Yes, that's true - ideas are nonrival goods. But they are not free goods, and they do roughly obey the law of supply and demand. The question becomes how to create incentives for the production of ideas, if the ideas cannot be valuable to the idea-generator.
That's why they are also moving to a first-to-file model. Prior art no longer matters
That's not correct. Prior art still matters, because it goes to the very patentability of whatever it is one is trying to patent. Something that is not novel is simply not patentable at all. The change that "first to file" would make is that in the case of a novel patent, the patent would be awarded to whoever makes the first filing, and not whoever is the first to actually invent it.
For example, presume that X completes a prototype microwidget in 2005, and Y independently completes a working microwidget in 2006. In 2007, two patents for microwidgets are filed - first by Y in June, then by X in July. Under our current system, X would (assuming he can prove it) be awarded the patent because he was first to invent the microwidget. Under the changed system, Y would be awarded the patent, because Y filed first. Under either system, if Z challenges the patent and demonstrates that microwidgets have actually been around for years, the patent is invalid for not being novel.
FTFH: Lessig Defends Free Culture in Keynote
If he's going to be defending "Free Culture," then shouldn't he really be doing it in Impress and not Keynote???
In case you don't read upthread, you can buy brand new keyboards with the CAPSLOCK and CTRL keys swapped. And even better, they're high-quality buckling spring keyboards, direct descendents of the IBM Model M. http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/linux101.html
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with this site, but I love my Model M keyboards.
Why can that function not be relegated to, say, holding down both Shift keys, or a longer hold down on one?
Why not CTRL+SHIFT for that matter?
'Linux' model buckling spring keyboard
http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/linux101.html
They even have two designs - one with just the CapsLock and LCtrl swapped, and one that also swaps the backtick and escape keys.
So, since you can get these if you want, I really don't know what the submitter is whining about. I guess s/he is just some kind of megalomaniacal totalitarian bent on forcing everyone to use the One True Keyboard or something.
Incidentally, between the two, I think the Sixteenth Amendment has done far more to destroy the concept of limited government than the Seventeenth.
Yup, mea culpa! Realized that right after I posted. In my defense, I constantly have the Sixteenth Amendment on my mind, because I think about it twice every month when I look at my FICA withholdings. Egads!
right along with electors being chosen by popular vote (it ought to be done by the state legislatures).
Technically, it is being done by the state legislatures. It's just that all the legislatures have decided to base their decision on a popular vote. There's no federal or constitutional requirement that they hold a vote, though.