Regarding the first requirement: We now know all the WMD and imminent threat hype we heard during the buildup to the war was a complete pack of lies. Iraq had no WMD, no nukes and after a 12-year embargo and bombing campaign, they had virtually no army. So Iraq was certainly not a "continuing threat" to America. And, even the President now admits, there were no Iraqi ties to 9-11.
You're correct on your details but leading to a false conclusion based on apriori knowledge. The consensus at the time (as I believe the OP's quotes clearly showed) was that Iraq posed a threat to the United States. If the congress members voted FOR such a bill AND at the time believed Iraq to be against #1, how is that ANY different from them actually voting to use military force against Iraq?
Moreover, such a detached, legalistic review of the bill is inherently flawed. To prove that the senators in question fit your description of events, you'd have to show that they thought the bill meant what you're reading it to mean. This isn't the case. Everyone in Washington believed that if the bill passed, we were going to war (unless, of course, Saddaam surrendered). In fact, that's what the opposition based its argument on--NOT points #1 or #2. (In fact, such points are pretty hard to disagree with.)
Let's be honest with history and ourselves: Democratic senators supported the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they did so on bad information, but let it NOT be mistaken, they DID support it--just like many Republicans.
FACT: The people of the United States confirmed Bush's decision by voting him into office for a second term.
That's conjecture at best. I'm sure you've no idea about voter irregularities and what really happened in Ohio in your Fox News derived world, so we'll let that one go. At this point it's irrevelant anyway.
I call bullshit on both of you. Bush was legally elected. Give it up already on the "irregularities". There was an army of lawyers on hand in the so-called swing states to make sure everything went without a hitch. If there was reliable, verifiable proof of fraud, I'm sure we would have heard about it from more than just the left-wing nuts by now. Why is it so hard to believe that the democratic candidate lost? Even right now, when Bush has his lowest approval ratings ever, polls indicate that he would STILL win against John Kerry.
However... what does the Bush election mean? That is a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer. Lots of people voted for a variety of reasons. This election had no mandate. Some probably did support the war. Others probably voted because of the gay marriage dispute (which, for the record, was precipitated by liberals--NOT Karl Rove). Others may have simply been voting against John Kerry. Others, such as myself, refused to vote for a party offering only criticism rather than solutions. To glibly assume a slim Bush victory means that the American people support EVERY ONE of Bush's policies (including the controversial ones--such as Iraq) would be foolish.
BUSH: The buck stops -----------> over there!
Cute... but welcome to politics. If you honestly believe that lack of personal responsibility is a characteristic limited to the Bush administration, you sir are the one drinking the koolaid.
A rural ISP would piggy back on existing towers. Even in the backwoods there are towers for radio stations, businesses, cellular telephone, etc.
Good luck getting space on those towers. Cellular phone towers are often owned by the telephone company which doesn't like competition (or future competition) with DSL. Radio tower owners can be outrageous in their rental fees and many states have confusing enforcement of power/telephone-poles being used for other telecommunications purposes.
Assuming that "we" equates to the USA then the best thing to do would be to stop supporting them. A good starting point would be the one in Washington DC.
Exactly how is the United States a despotic regime? Do you even know what that means?
It a country dosn't have any coastline or large lakes then having a navy is probably not a priority.
Which is a relevant point, how?
You're failing to address the obvious: What about states that DO have coastlines and large lakes? For these states, a navy is a necessity. The GP is wrong: navies are a inevitable necessity.
They're doing things like enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq, which killing MILLIONS of people. Or they're taking part in the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq,
So what are we supposed to do with despotic regimes that threaten world peace? We can't invade them because that would kill innocent people, and we can't not trade with them because, under your definitions, that would kill people as well... what are we supposed to do?
Are we supposed to listen to the U.N.? You just said that the war in Iraq was "illegal"--according to whom? I assume you mean the U.N. because they are the only institution capable of making such a judgment. But wait... why listen to them if U.N. Resolutions kill "MILLIONS of people"?
The fact is that humanity doesn't need a navy.
Ahh yes. What were they thinking?!? Clearly, 2/3rds of the Earth surface should remain completely unguarded. You're right, what humanity needs is a throwback to the old pirate days! Arr!
Let's be serious, though. The navy is no different from any other military organization, save for the fact that they operate on the water. Perhaps in a perfect world, no military would ever be required, but until that world comes into fruition, a military in all its forms (land, sea, and air) will be a necessity for all important states.
Then you bring innocent by-standers like whales into it, and claim you have a right to protect the rights of humans above animals when the humans are the aggressors... I say fuck the BILLIONS of dollars, and fuck the navy too.
Well I say, fuck the whales. People are morally worth more than animals--even the cute animals that environmentalists hypocritically embrace. Have you ever eaten meat? Have you ever used a leather product in any form? Have you ever used an animal product in any form? Have you ever indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever supported an industry that either directly or indirectly kills animals? Examples would include: agriculture (and yes, fucking organic foods count here--the harvesters kill animals quite frequently), electricity generation, textiles, chemical industry, and so on. More generally, have you ever directly or indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever stepped on a bug or run over one with a bike or car tire? Have you ever sat idly by while such transgressions are occurring in front of you?
Unless you can claim no to all of those answers, you're an aggressor as well.
Option C)
- Overthrow your neo-conservative government ...
- Stop fucking with people generally
In other words, "do everything *I* want, which includes as many vague definitions and liberal buzzwords as possible."
Get a grip. Until you and your movements can actually offer realistic solutions to real world problems rather than soley duplicitous criticism, don't be surprised if nobody listens.
Despite the term being misappropriated by consumer-grade products, the term "access point" has a very specific meaning: a device that acts as the hub for wireless communications.
Routers have a very specific meaning as well. The fact that the WAP54G has built-in routing features makes it a router as well. You do realize that routers don't have to have multiple ethernet ports, right?
Wireless routers have come to have a common definition as well. They are access points with routing features. So given that the WAP54G has both features makes it--you guessed it--a wireless router. I understand where the confusion comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised if this confusion over terms were, in fact, part of his problem.
I'm sure he's not completely wireless so that's why he has a router.
Really? You're sure? Because he never said anything to that effect in the submission.
Regardless, even if that is true, what possible reason could there be for having both devices for a home network? The Airlink 101 can serve both the wireless and wired portions of the network. Only an unnecessarily complex home network design would call for both devices. If this guy is struggling to get WEP up and running, I seriously doubt he's utilizing such a complicated design.
Also, disabling SSID broadcast does nothing but slow your network transmissions.
So does WEP. In fact, WEP significantly slows down older cards. Disabling ESSID broadcasting provides a slight defense against the unintended connections from neighbors or malicious people who don't know what they're doing. Of course, neither WEP nor disabling ESSID broadcasts is foolproof, but the presence of both can be enough to discourage an attack when other nearby APs are on default settings.
Okay. The issue of whether or not this story should be posted aside, here goes:
1st order of business:
I have a Linksys WAP54G access point and an Airlink 101 Wireless router
Wait, why do you have two access points? FYI, wireless routers are access points. Furthermore, why do you have two routers? The WAP54G is a router as well. Take one of those devices back to the store and re-evaluate your network design. For clarity, here's how it should look:
I'm going to hope you weren't thinking that the two Airlink and Linksys devices were going to communicate with each other wirelessly just because they both had "802.11G" written on them...
2nd
Make sure that the wireless card on your laptop (or PCMCIA card) supports 802.11G and not 802.11B--THEY TWO ARE DIFFERENT. Don't assume that it is. Check, it could be the source of your problem. Who knows, maybe you're connecting to your neighbor's 802.11b WAP that DOES have MAC address filtering? Just check.
3rd
Save yourself a lot of trouble and work from least complex --> most complex
Order of business should be as follows:
Reset the settings on the router. (God knows what you've done here.)
Connect to the router via ethernet. Make sure it works.
Connect the modem to the router. Make sure it works.
Set up wireless connection on the router with the ONLY security feature being a unique SSID name. DO NOT use any personally identifiable information in the name.
Set up wireless network on the laptop. Make sure to use a static IP with the correct digits. Also, the primary DNS server IP should be the same as the gateway IP.
Connect to the wireless network.
Gradually introducing features, first on the router and then on your computer. I would suggest doing so in the following order:
DHCP (optional)
Enable WEP. (Or any other encryption scheme) Do not use the passphrase system on the linksys router software. That stuff is a gimmick. Just assign a hexadecimal password.
Disable ESSID broadcast
Wireless MAC address filtering. Get your MAC address from ipconfig NOT the back of the card.
If something goes wrong, ethernet back in and remove the setting that caused the problem.
Each of those steps should be simple enough that you can Google for the appropriate answers--unless of course the card/router is bad (I have run into this). Worse comes to worse, get a geek friend of yours to come over and set it up for you. Bribe him with a bag of Doritos or... *gasp*... pay him.
You say that as though events that are correlated are never one caused by the other.
No he's not. The point of that saying is that correlation cannot be used in place of a scientifically determined mechanism to explain why. For those interested in law, statistical correlation is akin to circumstantial evidence in court. Alone by itself (and maybe accompanied by a little conjecture) it means nothing.
Of course many things do correlate. Mass correlates perfectly well with the force of gravity on an object in a vacuum. However, this doesn't mean that the invisible spaghetti monster in the center of the earth is partial to bigger objects, now does it?
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that planting the seed of thought that it's OK to steal music online leads to justifying (and then doing) other forms of theft and criminal activity.
But that's not what they're doing here. They're not even attempting to study the matter any further because, didn't you hear? Filesharers are thieves! This isn't science. It's an ad hominem attack. One might even go so far as to say that it's propaganda.
Like 99% of the statistics referenced in politics, this study's results are deceptive and intended only to confuse and sway those lacking a proper background in statistics and scientific theory.
Will the voter notice? I don't think so. If I were hacking the election machine, I would make the paper ballot match whatever the voter put it.
As for the paper tally, I don't think there will be one.
Did you even read the article? The whole system revolves around the stand-alone nature of each part and that the paper tally is taken.
Easy enough. Compile each stand-alone section of the system using different compilers compiled by different programs. If something isn't working correctly, either the voter is going to notice (when the paper ballot reader reads it back to him or her), or there's going to be a discrepancy between the paper tally and the electronic tally.
But honestly, isn't that a bit far-fetched? As if someone is going to be able to insert code into the GCC compiler? Well, if you think it's realistic, tell me: how does the chance of THAT compare to the ease of simply replacing paper ballots or just throwing them away in a river somewhere?
No matter how you look at it, this system is BETTER than paper. It offers all the advantages of computer voting with the reliability of paper voting and the potential security of both systems combined. Plus it's open source, which is cool. What's there not to like?
Something I think everyone is missing is that virtually no money was lost as a result of piracy from this particular movie.
Why?
All of the newer Star Wars movies were specifically designed to be viewed in a THX-certified theater. Anything less is an inferior experience. That was, after all, the argument behind requiring theaters to be certified in the first place. I'd wager to bet that only a negligable amount of people were actually content with the quality of the leaked copy enough NOT to go to the theater.
The fact that convinctions occured from this movie is ironic and telling to the fact that anti-piracy laws are not based in reality but rather fear--fear of losing control.
Yes of course. The Iraq presence is all to do with fighting terrorism. Obviously. No, really. No, honestly. Seriously.
Not even Bush himself is saying that. Included among the stated reasons was:
Overthrowing of a despot
Establishment of a modernized, democratic state in the center of the middle east
Capture of the WMDs that everyone in the intelligence agencies thought was there.
Of course, there were other reasons but these can't exactly be stated publicly. One can infer that they are:
A show of American dominance and power. (This one may not have worked so well. But I believe the general idea was similar to that of the former JFK administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The idea was to display American strength and deter any future internationally sponsored 9/11-style attacks.)
The establishment of a honeypot. Distract the terrorists within the region to the much closer target of Iraq. Fight them where we are prepared for them. Instead of their attacks killing bystanders who are american, let them kill muslims in order to undermine their base of support.
Establishment of military bases within the region to secure the oil supply that the American public is addicted to. Don't kid youself, liberals drive cars too. Many famous ones fly private jets. In the event that OPEC became hostile or a large-scale war broke out (ex. China vs. United States), these bases would be key for victory.
Another reason was probably pork for somebody's favorite group of companies: Haliburton and crew.
Like them or not, those are the reasons. Now, rather than just mindlessly bashing, show why they are wrong and provide a coherent, viable alternative plan. Had the democrats done so instead of fallen into such a malcontent mindset, they might have won.
If people are hacking the hardware and using free/semi-free/illegal homebrew software, they're not buying the "real" games. If you can explain how that would not lead to lower profits for Sony, i'd love to hear it.
Easy. Make it marginally difficult to mod so that only those interested pursue it.
Now, what happens? A minority of people dedicated to doing so hack the PSP (don't fool yourself, this was going to happen anyway). The less you harass them, the more these people rant and rave on every G3 Attack of the Show! episode and slashdot article about how cool the PSP is and how much it can do. This becomes, in effect, free advertising. Moreover, when every geek has a PSP, you achieve something far more special--a trend.
But being marginally difficult to mod, MOST people do not. Instead, you get those people to buy the PSP b/c of the coolness factor and then hook them on your games and movies that are offered at a reasonable price. Profit.
It's really not a hard concept. The majority of people are not hackers, nor will they ever be. Put bluntly, the majority of consumers are lazy. They will follow the path of least resistance, which you should provide them at every opportunity--for a reasonable price, of course. Why do you think Alienware is still in business when you can build your own top-notch computer for much cheaper? Why do most people pay for an oil change in their cars? Why do people buy music off of iTunes, when they can get songs free via P2P software?
The problem is that Sony doesn't get it. Instead, they harass the mod community with updates that block patching and so forth. They don't offer a good selection of games, and the movies they offer are obviously overpriced and incorrectly packaged. (Why the hell aren't those movie UMDs included w/ the movie DVDs for like $5/10 dollars more?--PEOPLE WOULD BUY THOSE). They don't offer floor models, so most people will never even see one, apart from pictures.
It's as if Sony thought they could design a badass handheld system and then do no nothing to promote or maintain it and still succeed. It's ridiculous. And it's no wonder analysts are starting to criticize them--the gaming community has for months.
Yeah, totally, because all those rich bastards just take their tax cut loot and throw it on the money pile they keep under their mattress, right?
No, mattresses are so low-class. Banks work much better! The money they do spend will be spent on gold-plated aquariums, another 70-inch plasma TV, or any number of unnecessary crap. Oh... and also campaign contributions of their favorite whor--I mean, politician. This, as opposed to tax-cuts for the poor which will be spent on such trifling things as food, transportation, rent, or (*gasp*) the occasional and rare form of entertainment. Nope, can't have that! (/sarcasm)
Trickle-down economics is inherently flawed because it wrongly assumes that poor people are somehow NOT connected to the economy. It's the equivalent of calling the working poor a "surplus population."
P.S. Get a clue before you tell others not to contribute to the discussion. Let the mods decide what is and isn't worth being here.
There is no culture revolution here. It's simple freeloading.
I'm not going to deny much of what you're saying. Yes, the most popular files on P2P networks represent the popular media.
But what is freeloading? Your probable response would have something to do with not paying, "getting something for relatively nothing," and/or stealing.
My issue is this: when a company (or group of companies), in effect, bribes representatives to "get something for relatively nothing", is that not freeloading as well? Or is it different because they wear suits and have lawyers?
This system that all but excuses corporate transgressions, while throwing poor people in jail for stealing $100 TVs is repugnant. And I use the word system very purposefully: because that's what it is. There's a reason why most of those responsible for the Enron debacle are still in business today. There's a reason why the few that did get caught will only see relatively few years, probably in "jails" with golf courses. There's a reason why Halliburton and ilk can design their entire business models around guaranteed government contracts, while looters in New Orleans get bullets fired over their heads during a time of national crises.
In short, there's a reason why the RIAA can design their business model around outrageous laws that do not serve the public good and be called "victims", while college kids who ignore those laws are called freeloaders. That is the system. College kids downloading are no more freeloaders than any corporate fat-cat. The only difference is that the aforementioned aren't playing by the rules. That's why they're "freeloaders."
You want a revolution? The revolution involves exposing this system that allows people who have never provided a product or service to receive wealth for the rest of their lifetimes riding upon the backs of truly productive people. No, I'm not talking about welfare. It's an entire class of people who make their money through investment and lobbying. It's a modern form of slavery. The only differences are that it's not a racial thing (or if it is, only indirectly) and the poverty (by and large) only manifests itself in relative deprivation.
May as well do a second pass with/dev/random, though it's not like the cops are going to send your drive in for forensic recovery unless you're a big fish.
Exactly. If it's not undeleted, in the recycle bin or your internet history/cache, I find it highly unlikely that anyone will ever see it. CNET just recently ran an article that alternative browsers "impede" investigations, because detectives can't figure out where to find the files. LOL
Granted, I'm sure the NSA, DoD, and CIA have much better methods, but for most people, one pass is more than enough.
Weeks ago, tucked away in some secret lair in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush, using all his demonic powers and a few human sacrifices (do Iraqis count?), summoned hurricane Katrina to terrorize--I mean "liberate"--the Gulf Coast. Though one can never be sure when dealing with the Dark Side, it's believed his reasons for creating this disaster probably stemmed from sheer spite and/or racism. At least that's the image painted by prominent figures such as Jesse Jackson, Kanye West, and Michael Moore, among others.
As popular as it may be to blame all ills (both foreign and domestic) on George W. Bush, one thing he is not responsible for is the weather. Some other examples of things out of Bush's nefarious sphere of influence would be: Michael Moore's weight problem (Super Size Me, indeed), war in the Middle East (has it ever stopped?), and the construction of a coastal city 200 years ago dangerously below sea level.
While the divisive politics of the far left and right continue unabated, more important issues remain ignored. First and foremost is the media's role in desensitizing the public to the danger of hurricanes. Every year, relatively harmless hurricanes are hyped-up for an easy Fall-season ratings boost. Every other hurricane is the "most destructive hurricane in history"--a claim which relies on economic inflation and increasing coastal development rather than actual hurricane strength. To put things in perspective, hurricane Katrina was the 4th strongest hurricane to strike the eastern seaboard in recorded history, and yet many people actually thought they could "wait it out." Why is that? Another topic is the division within our country right now. Even in the face of tragedy, our nation is unwilling or unable to pull together, and that is far more perilous than any hurricane, even Katrina.
I wouldn't even try to reason with the mindless slashbots anymore if I were you. It seems in their view, nobody from non-western countries can be held accountable for their actions. This ironically enough, is a racist point of view. You'll find that it often manifests itself in a couple ways.
1. The myth that Islamic extremism is merely a response to western actions. This flies in the face of their own rhetoric and the presence of Islamic terrorists in India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Chechnya, the Philippines, and so on.
2. Refusal to listen to any United States explanation (because we are the only ones capable of deceit), while taking Iran's word, for instance, at face value. They'd have us believe that a country sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world wants an peaceful alternative energy source... sure...
3. Ignoring actual actions and statements of foreign officials while scrutinizing president Bush at every turn. Nobody seems to remember the fact that Saddam Hussein was funding the families of suicide bombers with $50,000 in Palestine and nobody seems to be discussing the implications of the establishment of a "martyrdom brigade" in Iran over the past couple of months. The Iranian diplomat even openly stated recently that the talks with the EU recently were merely a ploy to continue research in the meantime. He actually publicly said this!
It's just a modern manifestation of appeasement, if you ask me.
Actually, the new strategy to take, is to hold the country who host or export terrorism as being responsible for their own action/inaction.
Exactly. Countries like Iran which openly support international terrorism and Islamic extremism need to be held accountable. They have a government-sanctioned martyrdom brigade, for crying out loud.
If a major American city gets nuked from an Iranian government-trained suicide bomber, I think we have every right to nuke them in return--even if they claim that they aren't responsible.
It's unfortunate, and I'm not saying that it's our only option for every situation. But we have to at least have the appearance of being ready to defend ourselves proactively.
On private property (home, office, restaurant, whatever) the owner is king. Other owners are free to be more or less open to others. It is YOUR property that I am on, why should I dictate anything to you?
This type of position is simplistic, misguided, and--above all--wrong. Property ownership at the individual level is enforced and justified completely differently from that of the nation-state level. Moreover, much of the government's purpose is to regulate undesirable or harmful behavior as determined by a system of ethics and the local social norms. Lastly, there are more important values than simply property ownership. Each of us has a particular set of responsibilities to one another (which could be termed "human rights"), regardless of where we are located (i.e. my property, yours, or Zonk's property).
What you are describing is more-or-less anarchy (or maybe even feudalism) with all the contradictory conveniences that a government provides. What prevents someone from killing you if you stray onto HIS property? What about property that is "land-locked" inside property of other, maybe even hostile, landholders? Where do public works and necessities (such as currency, a military, and judiciary, for example) arise from--the generosity of some land-holders? And, most importantly, what about those too poor to own land?
Well, you see, the non-scientific web poll is basically an anecdote, one person's perspective of what they think or what they've done. And the plural of anecdote is, of course, data.
Ahh... But what kind of data?
It's data based upon perceptions of a particular kind of person during a particular time period. So instead of saying X% of U.S. workers are lazy, your data becomes "X% of U.S. workers who have internet access and visted Y random site during Z time period believe they are lazy."--which is far less sensational than "READ ALL ABOUT IT: AMERICAN WORKERS ARE LAZY!!!".
Therefore, if your sample size is large enough, your non-scientific web poll can generate a large set of data that you can describe in scientific terms.
This type of thinking is analgous to the old saying: "We lose money on every sale but we make up for it in volume." If the data isn't scientifically sound, no amount of statistics (including large datasets) will save the results.
Sampling issues and scientific methods like these are not easy stuff. There's a reason people trust enough to pay for multi-million dollar gallop polls over simple web-based polls.
The result are cowering, frightened local government who consult with lawyers for days before declaring mandatory evacuation because they are afraid of "lawsuits by the casino and hotel owners". Then comes fright of lawsuits by citizens if they are forced to leave on buses.
Oh come on... You can't blame the litigious nature of the American public on neo-conservatives. They haven't been in power THAT long.
As a matter of fact, if you actually examine the origins and history of lawsuit-filled mentality in which we find ourselves, you'd realize that much of it follows closely to the anti-establishment movements of the 1960's. Without God or country to look to, it seems most people (obviously not all) tend to turn towards materialism and selfishness. Combine that with new surges in marketing and psychology, and you have a general populace focused on little more than consumption and greed.
Moreover, the neo-conservatism movement, was themed around the idea that such aforementioned apathy would be the downfall of our society. In other words, they are against what you're talking about, not for it. Hence, the stressing of patriotism and simplification of foreign political issues to try and rally the populace around something other than themselves. And as far as lawsuits go, just look at the last election: whom were the trial lawyers voting for? It most certainly wasn't Bush, with things like lawsuit damage-caps being discussed.
The neo-conservatives aren't good and should be fought against. But let's at least maintain a realistic view of what they are--and more importantly what they aren't. (i.e. some nefarious group responsible for all of the world's ills)
If a nuke comes into the US, it will be an Israeli nuke that some militant stole - or an Israeli nuke brought in by the Mossad to convince people that North Korea sold a nuke to Iran, so the US should nuke both of them.
Anti-Semite much?
Get a grip. You're forgetting that the most probable source of black-market nuclear weapons isn't China or Israel. It's Russia. They have dozens of missing nukes which are though to be in control of the Russian mafia. Hundreds more are almost completely unguarded.
It's totally meaningless as long as they have less than a couple hundred nukes and we have thousands.
Totally meaningless? This is a country whose government has called for the destruction of the United States. Iran has even got a government-sanctioned martyrdom brigade. If they obtain nuclear weapons, they are crazy enough to use them first--even if doing so would mean their utter annihilation.
Isn't there something similar device under development for gun triggers? It senses the pressure pattern during the shot and not fires if the pattern doesn't match.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me. That jittery second in which one would decide to use lethal force to defend himself would most certainly (I should hope) be different than just any regular day at the firing range.
There is no way to be able to force people to delete it on their computer except via DRM. People who use this content, AREN'T paying for it (at least in most public libraries)
They aren't? And here I was thinking that the public library was supported by tax-dollars.
In a very real sense, the vast majority of patrons of a public library have paid for it. So, being that libraries AND copyright protections are public constructs, why shouldn't both benefit the general public (as opposed to a select few right now) to their fullest?
It seems to me that we have all of this wonderful technology that could exalt our society to a next level in human existence and yet we distinctly lack the vision to use our gifts properly. Instead, we only use information in an isolated part of our lives that mostly has to do with making money from others.
We're supposedly in the information age and yet our libraries are almost completely empty. Imagine for a second if our libraries became the center of it all. Rather than the dilapidated shitholes most are now, they would be nicely furnished. In exchange for commercial copyright privileges, all copyrighted works (not just the crappy ones), would have to have an electronic copy at every "new" library in the country. Patrons could view/use any of the material while in the library for free. Others could rent copies out using DRM for a specified time period. Others could buy the material outright at a reduced price with compensation going to the copyright holder.
Can anyone please explain to me how the above system would hurt a single person? Sure DRM could be broken, but those who would do that would be in the vast minority. Commercial "intellectual property" enterprises would still be completely viable. For example, most people wouldn't stop buying CDs because they can get a free copy at the cost of a hassle--otherwise unused CD sales would have altogether stopped years ago. And yet, the material would still be available to those in the public who desired to have the information--and that could make all the difference in the new knowledge-based world economic environment.
But it'll never happen. Because content producers and distributors are behind the reins, copyright has for decades ceased to actually promote the Arts and Sciences, and most people, being products of our wonderful public education system, are too ignorant to understand the whole concept of "intellectual property."
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding the first requirement: We now know all the WMD and imminent threat hype we heard during the buildup to the war was a complete pack of lies. Iraq had no WMD, no nukes and after a 12-year embargo and bombing campaign, they had virtually no army. So Iraq was certainly not a "continuing threat" to America. And, even the President now admits, there were no Iraqi ties to 9-11.
You're correct on your details but leading to a false conclusion based on apriori knowledge. The consensus at the time (as I believe the OP's quotes clearly showed) was that Iraq posed a threat to the United States. If the congress members voted FOR such a bill AND at the time believed Iraq to be against #1, how is that ANY different from them actually voting to use military force against Iraq?
Moreover, such a detached, legalistic review of the bill is inherently flawed. To prove that the senators in question fit your description of events, you'd have to show that they thought the bill meant what you're reading it to mean. This isn't the case. Everyone in Washington believed that if the bill passed, we were going to war (unless, of course, Saddaam surrendered). In fact, that's what the opposition based its argument on--NOT points #1 or #2. (In fact, such points are pretty hard to disagree with.)
Let's be honest with history and ourselves: Democratic senators supported the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they did so on bad information, but let it NOT be mistaken, they DID support it--just like many Republicans.
FACT: The people of the United States confirmed Bush's decision by voting him into office for a second term.
That's conjecture at best. I'm sure you've no idea about voter irregularities and what really happened in Ohio in your Fox News derived world, so we'll let that one go. At this point it's irrevelant anyway.
I call bullshit on both of you. Bush was legally elected. Give it up already on the "irregularities". There was an army of lawyers on hand in the so-called swing states to make sure everything went without a hitch. If there was reliable, verifiable proof of fraud, I'm sure we would have heard about it from more than just the left-wing nuts by now. Why is it so hard to believe that the democratic candidate lost? Even right now, when Bush has his lowest approval ratings ever, polls indicate that he would STILL win against John Kerry.
However... what does the Bush election mean? That is a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer. Lots of people voted for a variety of reasons. This election had no mandate. Some probably did support the war. Others probably voted because of the gay marriage dispute (which, for the record, was precipitated by liberals--NOT Karl Rove). Others may have simply been voting against John Kerry. Others, such as myself, refused to vote for a party offering only criticism rather than solutions. To glibly assume a slim Bush victory means that the American people support EVERY ONE of Bush's policies (including the controversial ones--such as Iraq) would be foolish.
BUSH: The buck stops -----------> over there!
Cute... but welcome to politics. If you honestly believe that lack of personal responsibility is a characteristic limited to the Bush administration, you sir are the one drinking the koolaid.
-Grym
A rural ISP would piggy back on existing towers. Even in the backwoods there are towers for radio stations, businesses, cellular telephone, etc.
Good luck getting space on those towers. Cellular phone towers are often owned by the telephone company which doesn't like competition (or future competition) with DSL. Radio tower owners can be outrageous in their rental fees and many states have confusing enforcement of power/telephone-poles being used for other telecommunications purposes.
-Grym
Assuming that "we" equates to the USA then the best thing to do would be to stop supporting them. A good starting point would be the one in Washington DC.
Exactly how is the United States a despotic regime? Do you even know what that means?
It a country dosn't have any coastline or large lakes then having a navy is probably not a priority.
Which is a relevant point, how?
You're failing to address the obvious: What about states that DO have coastlines and large lakes? For these states, a navy is a necessity. The GP is wrong: navies are a inevitable necessity.
-Grym
They're doing things like enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq, which killing MILLIONS of people. Or they're taking part in the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq,
So what are we supposed to do with despotic regimes that threaten world peace? We can't invade them because that would kill innocent people, and we can't not trade with them because, under your definitions, that would kill people as well... what are we supposed to do?
Are we supposed to listen to the U.N.? You just said that the war in Iraq was "illegal"--according to whom? I assume you mean the U.N. because they are the only institution capable of making such a judgment. But wait... why listen to them if U.N. Resolutions kill "MILLIONS of people"?
The fact is that humanity doesn't need a navy.
Ahh yes. What were they thinking?!? Clearly, 2/3rds of the Earth surface should remain completely unguarded. You're right, what humanity needs is a throwback to the old pirate days! Arr!
Let's be serious, though. The navy is no different from any other military organization, save for the fact that they operate on the water. Perhaps in a perfect world, no military would ever be required, but until that world comes into fruition, a military in all its forms (land, sea, and air) will be a necessity for all important states.
Then you bring innocent by-standers like whales into it, and claim you have a right to protect the rights of humans above animals when the humans are the aggressors... I say fuck the BILLIONS of dollars, and fuck the navy too.
Well I say, fuck the whales. People are morally worth more than animals--even the cute animals that environmentalists hypocritically embrace. Have you ever eaten meat? Have you ever used a leather product in any form? Have you ever used an animal product in any form? Have you ever indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever supported an industry that either directly or indirectly kills animals? Examples would include: agriculture (and yes, fucking organic foods count here--the harvesters kill animals quite frequently), electricity generation, textiles, chemical industry, and so on. More generally, have you ever directly or indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever stepped on a bug or run over one with a bike or car tire? Have you ever sat idly by while such transgressions are occurring in front of you?
Unless you can claim no to all of those answers, you're an aggressor as well.
Option C)
...
- Overthrow your neo-conservative government
- Stop fucking with people generally
In other words, "do everything *I* want, which includes as many vague definitions and liberal buzzwords as possible."
Get a grip. Until you and your movements can actually offer realistic solutions to real world problems rather than soley duplicitous criticism, don't be surprised if nobody listens.
-Grym
It has routing features but no ethernet ports.
And something that has routing features is...?
Despite the term being misappropriated by consumer-grade products, the term "access point" has a very specific meaning: a device that acts as the hub for wireless communications.
Routers have a very specific meaning as well. The fact that the WAP54G has built-in routing features makes it a router as well. You do realize that routers don't have to have multiple ethernet ports, right?
Wireless routers have come to have a common definition as well. They are access points with routing features. So given that the WAP54G has both features makes it--you guessed it--a wireless router. I understand where the confusion comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised if this confusion over terms were, in fact, part of his problem.
I'm sure he's not completely wireless so that's why he has a router.
Really? You're sure? Because he never said anything to that effect in the submission.
Regardless, even if that is true, what possible reason could there be for having both devices for a home network? The Airlink 101 can serve both the wireless and wired portions of the network. Only an unnecessarily complex home network design would call for both devices. If this guy is struggling to get WEP up and running, I seriously doubt he's utilizing such a complicated design.
Also, disabling SSID broadcast does nothing but slow your network transmissions.
So does WEP. In fact, WEP significantly slows down older cards. Disabling ESSID broadcasting provides a slight defense against the unintended connections from neighbors or malicious people who don't know what they're doing. Of course, neither WEP nor disabling ESSID broadcasts is foolproof, but the presence of both can be enough to discourage an attack when other nearby APs are on default settings.
-Grym
Okay. The issue of whether or not this story should be posted aside, here goes:
1st order of business:
I have a Linksys WAP54G access point and an Airlink 101 Wireless router
Wait, why do you have two access points? FYI, wireless routers are access points. Furthermore, why do you have two routers? The WAP54G is a router as well. Take one of those devices back to the store and re-evaluate your network design. For clarity, here's how it should look:
Wall ---wire --- > Cable/DSL modem ---wire ---> Wireless Router --- magic --> Computer
I'm going to hope you weren't thinking that the two Airlink and Linksys devices were going to communicate with each other wirelessly just because they both had "802.11G" written on them...
2nd
Make sure that the wireless card on your laptop (or PCMCIA card) supports 802.11G and not 802.11B--THEY TWO ARE DIFFERENT. Don't assume that it is. Check, it could be the source of your problem. Who knows, maybe you're connecting to your neighbor's 802.11b WAP that DOES have MAC address filtering? Just check.
3rd
Save yourself a lot of trouble and work from least complex --> most complex
Order of business should be as follows:
Each of those steps should be simple enough that you can Google for the appropriate answers--unless of course the card/router is bad (I have run into this). Worse comes to worse, get a geek friend of yours to come over and set it up for you. Bribe him with a bag of Doritos or... *gasp*... pay him.
-Grym
You say that as though events that are correlated are never one caused by the other.
No he's not. The point of that saying is that correlation cannot be used in place of a scientifically determined mechanism to explain why. For those interested in law, statistical correlation is akin to circumstantial evidence in court. Alone by itself (and maybe accompanied by a little conjecture) it means nothing.
Of course many things do correlate. Mass correlates perfectly well with the force of gravity on an object in a vacuum. However, this doesn't mean that the invisible spaghetti monster in the center of the earth is partial to bigger objects, now does it?
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that planting the seed of thought that it's OK to steal music online leads to justifying (and then doing) other forms of theft and criminal activity.
But that's not what they're doing here. They're not even attempting to study the matter any further because, didn't you hear? Filesharers are thieves! This isn't science. It's an ad hominem attack. One might even go so far as to say that it's propaganda.
Like 99% of the statistics referenced in politics, this study's results are deceptive and intended only to confuse and sway those lacking a proper background in statistics and scientific theory.
-Grym
Will the voter notice? I don't think so. If I were hacking the election machine, I would make the paper ballot match whatever the voter put it. As for the paper tally, I don't think there will be one.
Did you even read the article? The whole system revolves around the stand-alone nature of each part and that the paper tally is taken.
-Grym
Easy enough. Compile each stand-alone section of the system using different compilers compiled by different programs. If something isn't working correctly, either the voter is going to notice (when the paper ballot reader reads it back to him or her), or there's going to be a discrepancy between the paper tally and the electronic tally.
But honestly, isn't that a bit far-fetched? As if someone is going to be able to insert code into the GCC compiler? Well, if you think it's realistic, tell me: how does the chance of THAT compare to the ease of simply replacing paper ballots or just throwing them away in a river somewhere?
No matter how you look at it, this system is BETTER than paper. It offers all the advantages of computer voting with the reliability of paper voting and the potential security of both systems combined. Plus it's open source, which is cool. What's there not to like?
-Grym
Something I think everyone is missing is that virtually no money was lost as a result of piracy from this particular movie.
Why?
All of the newer Star Wars movies were specifically designed to be viewed in a THX-certified theater. Anything less is an inferior experience. That was, after all, the argument behind requiring theaters to be certified in the first place. I'd wager to bet that only a negligable amount of people were actually content with the quality of the leaked copy enough NOT to go to the theater.
The fact that convinctions occured from this movie is ironic and telling to the fact that anti-piracy laws are not based in reality but rather fear--fear of losing control.
-Grym
Yes of course. The Iraq presence is all to do with fighting terrorism. Obviously. No, really. No, honestly. Seriously.
Not even Bush himself is saying that. Included among the stated reasons was:
Of course, there were other reasons but these can't exactly be stated publicly. One can infer that they are:
Like them or not, those are the reasons. Now, rather than just mindlessly bashing, show why they are wrong and provide a coherent, viable alternative plan. Had the democrats done so instead of fallen into such a malcontent mindset, they might have won.
-Grym
If people are hacking the hardware and using free/semi-free/illegal homebrew software, they're not buying the "real" games. If you can explain how that would not lead to lower profits for Sony, i'd love to hear it.
Easy. Make it marginally difficult to mod so that only those interested pursue it.
Now, what happens? A minority of people dedicated to doing so hack the PSP (don't fool yourself, this was going to happen anyway). The less you harass them, the more these people rant and rave on every G3 Attack of the Show! episode and slashdot article about how cool the PSP is and how much it can do. This becomes, in effect, free advertising. Moreover, when every geek has a PSP, you achieve something far more special--a trend.
But being marginally difficult to mod, MOST people do not. Instead, you get those people to buy the PSP b/c of the coolness factor and then hook them on your games and movies that are offered at a reasonable price. Profit.
It's really not a hard concept. The majority of people are not hackers, nor will they ever be. Put bluntly, the majority of consumers are lazy. They will follow the path of least resistance, which you should provide them at every opportunity--for a reasonable price, of course. Why do you think Alienware is still in business when you can build your own top-notch computer for much cheaper? Why do most people pay for an oil change in their cars? Why do people buy music off of iTunes, when they can get songs free via P2P software?
The problem is that Sony doesn't get it. Instead, they harass the mod community with updates that block patching and so forth. They don't offer a good selection of games, and the movies they offer are obviously overpriced and incorrectly packaged. (Why the hell aren't those movie UMDs included w/ the movie DVDs for like $5/10 dollars more?--PEOPLE WOULD BUY THOSE). They don't offer floor models, so most people will never even see one, apart from pictures.
It's as if Sony thought they could design a badass handheld system and then do no nothing to promote or maintain it and still succeed. It's ridiculous. And it's no wonder analysts are starting to criticize them--the gaming community has for months.
-Grym
Yeah, totally, because all those rich bastards just take their tax cut loot and throw it on the money pile they keep under their mattress, right?
No, mattresses are so low-class. Banks work much better! The money they do spend will be spent on gold-plated aquariums, another 70-inch plasma TV, or any number of unnecessary crap. Oh... and also campaign contributions of their favorite whor--I mean, politician. This, as opposed to tax-cuts for the poor which will be spent on such trifling things as food, transportation, rent, or (*gasp*) the occasional and rare form of entertainment. Nope, can't have that! (/sarcasm)
Trickle-down economics is inherently flawed because it wrongly assumes that poor people are somehow NOT connected to the economy. It's the equivalent of calling the working poor a "surplus population."
P.S. Get a clue before you tell others not to contribute to the discussion. Let the mods decide what is and isn't worth being here.
-Grym
My e-mail is openly listed in the upper right corner of my account info.
-Grym
There is no culture revolution here. It's simple freeloading.
I'm not going to deny much of what you're saying. Yes, the most popular files on P2P networks represent the popular media.
But what is freeloading? Your probable response would have something to do with not paying, "getting something for relatively nothing," and/or stealing.
My issue is this: when a company (or group of companies), in effect, bribes representatives to "get something for relatively nothing", is that not freeloading as well? Or is it different because they wear suits and have lawyers?
This system that all but excuses corporate transgressions, while throwing poor people in jail for stealing $100 TVs is repugnant. And I use the word system very purposefully: because that's what it is. There's a reason why most of those responsible for the Enron debacle are still in business today. There's a reason why the few that did get caught will only see relatively few years, probably in "jails" with golf courses. There's a reason why Halliburton and ilk can design their entire business models around guaranteed government contracts, while looters in New Orleans get bullets fired over their heads during a time of national crises.
In short, there's a reason why the RIAA can design their business model around outrageous laws that do not serve the public good and be called "victims", while college kids who ignore those laws are called freeloaders. That is the system. College kids downloading are no more freeloaders than any corporate fat-cat. The only difference is that the aforementioned aren't playing by the rules. That's why they're "freeloaders."
You want a revolution? The revolution involves exposing this system that allows people who have never provided a product or service to receive wealth for the rest of their lifetimes riding upon the backs of truly productive people. No, I'm not talking about welfare. It's an entire class of people who make their money through investment and lobbying. It's a modern form of slavery. The only differences are that it's not a racial thing (or if it is, only indirectly) and the poverty (by and large) only manifests itself in relative deprivation.
-Grym
May as well do a second pass with /dev/random, though it's not like the cops are going to send your drive in for forensic recovery unless you're a big fish.
Exactly. If it's not undeleted, in the recycle bin or your internet history/cache, I find it highly unlikely that anyone will ever see it. CNET just recently ran an article that alternative browsers "impede" investigations, because detectives can't figure out where to find the files. LOL
Granted, I'm sure the NSA, DoD, and CIA have much better methods, but for most people, one pass is more than enough.
-Grym
Weeks ago, tucked away in some secret lair in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush, using all his demonic powers and a few human sacrifices (do Iraqis count?), summoned hurricane Katrina to terrorize--I mean "liberate"--the Gulf Coast. Though one can never be sure when dealing with the Dark Side, it's believed his reasons for creating this disaster probably stemmed from sheer spite and/or racism. At least that's the image painted by prominent figures such as Jesse Jackson, Kanye West, and Michael Moore, among others.
As popular as it may be to blame all ills (both foreign and domestic) on George W. Bush, one thing he is not responsible for is the weather. Some other examples of things out of Bush's nefarious sphere of influence would be: Michael Moore's weight problem (Super Size Me, indeed), war in the Middle East (has it ever stopped?), and the construction of a coastal city 200 years ago dangerously below sea level.
While the divisive politics of the far left and right continue unabated, more important issues remain ignored. First and foremost is the media's role in desensitizing the public to the danger of hurricanes. Every year, relatively harmless hurricanes are hyped-up for an easy Fall-season ratings boost. Every other hurricane is the "most destructive hurricane in history"--a claim which relies on economic inflation and increasing coastal development rather than actual hurricane strength. To put things in perspective, hurricane Katrina was the 4th strongest hurricane to strike the eastern seaboard in recorded history, and yet many people actually thought they could "wait it out." Why is that? Another topic is the division within our country right now. Even in the face of tragedy, our nation is unwilling or unable to pull together, and that is far more perilous than any hurricane, even Katrina.
-Grym
I wouldn't even try to reason with the mindless slashbots anymore if I were you. It seems in their view, nobody from non-western countries can be held accountable for their actions. This ironically enough, is a racist point of view. You'll find that it often manifests itself in a couple ways.
1. The myth that Islamic extremism is merely a response to western actions. This flies in the face of their own rhetoric and the presence of Islamic terrorists in India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Chechnya, the Philippines, and so on.
2. Refusal to listen to any United States explanation (because we are the only ones capable of deceit), while taking Iran's word, for instance, at face value. They'd have us believe that a country sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world wants an peaceful alternative energy source... sure...
3. Ignoring actual actions and statements of foreign officials while scrutinizing president Bush at every turn. Nobody seems to remember the fact that Saddam Hussein was funding the families of suicide bombers with $50,000 in Palestine and nobody seems to be discussing the implications of the establishment of a "martyrdom brigade" in Iran over the past couple of months. The Iranian diplomat even openly stated recently that the talks with the EU recently were merely a ploy to continue research in the meantime. He actually publicly said this!
It's just a modern manifestation of appeasement, if you ask me.
-Grym
Actually, the new strategy to take, is to hold the country who host or export terrorism as being responsible for their own action/inaction.
Exactly. Countries like Iran which openly support international terrorism and Islamic extremism need to be held accountable. They have a government-sanctioned martyrdom brigade, for crying out loud.
If a major American city gets nuked from an Iranian government-trained suicide bomber, I think we have every right to nuke them in return--even if they claim that they aren't responsible.
It's unfortunate, and I'm not saying that it's our only option for every situation. But we have to at least have the appearance of being ready to defend ourselves proactively.
-Grym
This type of position is simplistic, misguided, and--above all--wrong. Property ownership at the individual level is enforced and justified completely differently from that of the nation-state level. Moreover, much of the government's purpose is to regulate undesirable or harmful behavior as determined by a system of ethics and the local social norms. Lastly, there are more important values than simply property ownership. Each of us has a particular set of responsibilities to one another (which could be termed "human rights"), regardless of where we are located (i.e. my property, yours, or Zonk's property).
What you are describing is more-or-less anarchy (or maybe even feudalism) with all the contradictory conveniences that a government provides. What prevents someone from killing you if you stray onto HIS property? What about property that is "land-locked" inside property of other, maybe even hostile, landholders? Where do public works and necessities (such as currency, a military, and judiciary, for example) arise from--the generosity of some land-holders? And, most importantly, what about those too poor to own land?
-Grym
Well, you see, the non-scientific web poll is basically an anecdote, one person's perspective of what they think or what they've done. And the plural of anecdote is, of course, data.
Ahh... But what kind of data?
It's data based upon perceptions of a particular kind of person during a particular time period. So instead of saying X% of U.S. workers are lazy, your data becomes "X% of U.S. workers who have internet access and visted Y random site during Z time period believe they are lazy."--which is far less sensational than "READ ALL ABOUT IT: AMERICAN WORKERS ARE LAZY!!!".
Therefore, if your sample size is large enough, your non-scientific web poll can generate a large set of data that you can describe in scientific terms.
This type of thinking is analgous to the old saying: "We lose money on every sale but we make up for it in volume." If the data isn't scientifically sound, no amount of statistics (including large datasets) will save the results.
Sampling issues and scientific methods like these are not easy stuff. There's a reason people trust enough to pay for multi-million dollar gallop polls over simple web-based polls.
-Grym
The result are cowering, frightened local government who consult with lawyers for days before declaring mandatory evacuation because they are afraid of "lawsuits by the casino and hotel owners". Then comes fright of lawsuits by citizens if they are forced to leave on buses.
Oh come on... You can't blame the litigious nature of the American public on neo-conservatives. They haven't been in power THAT long.
As a matter of fact, if you actually examine the origins and history of lawsuit-filled mentality in which we find ourselves, you'd realize that much of it follows closely to the anti-establishment movements of the 1960's. Without God or country to look to, it seems most people (obviously not all) tend to turn towards materialism and selfishness. Combine that with new surges in marketing and psychology, and you have a general populace focused on little more than consumption and greed.
Moreover, the neo-conservatism movement, was themed around the idea that such aforementioned apathy would be the downfall of our society. In other words, they are against what you're talking about, not for it. Hence, the stressing of patriotism and simplification of foreign political issues to try and rally the populace around something other than themselves. And as far as lawsuits go, just look at the last election: whom were the trial lawyers voting for? It most certainly wasn't Bush, with things like lawsuit damage-caps being discussed.
The neo-conservatives aren't good and should be fought against. But let's at least maintain a realistic view of what they are--and more importantly what they aren't. (i.e. some nefarious group responsible for all of the world's ills)
-Grym
If a nuke comes into the US, it will be an Israeli nuke that some militant stole - or an Israeli nuke brought in by the Mossad to convince people that North Korea sold a nuke to Iran, so the US should nuke both of them.
Anti-Semite much?
Get a grip. You're forgetting that the most probable source of black-market nuclear weapons isn't China or Israel. It's Russia. They have dozens of missing nukes which are though to be in control of the Russian mafia. Hundreds more are almost completely unguarded.
It's totally meaningless as long as they have less than a couple hundred nukes and we have thousands.
Totally meaningless? This is a country whose government has called for the destruction of the United States. Iran has even got a government-sanctioned martyrdom brigade. If they obtain nuclear weapons, they are crazy enough to use them first--even if doing so would mean their utter annihilation.
-Grym
Isn't there something similar device under development for gun triggers? It senses the pressure pattern during the shot and not fires if the pattern doesn't match.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me. That jittery second in which one would decide to use lethal force to defend himself would most certainly (I should hope) be different than just any regular day at the firing range.
They aren't? And here I was thinking that the public library was supported by tax-dollars.
In a very real sense, the vast majority of patrons of a public library have paid for it. So, being that libraries AND copyright protections are public constructs, why shouldn't both benefit the general public (as opposed to a select few right now) to their fullest?
It seems to me that we have all of this wonderful technology that could exalt our society to a next level in human existence and yet we distinctly lack the vision to use our gifts properly. Instead, we only use information in an isolated part of our lives that mostly has to do with making money from others.
We're supposedly in the information age and yet our libraries are almost completely empty. Imagine for a second if our libraries became the center of it all. Rather than the dilapidated shitholes most are now, they would be nicely furnished. In exchange for commercial copyright privileges, all copyrighted works (not just the crappy ones), would have to have an electronic copy at every "new" library in the country. Patrons could view/use any of the material while in the library for free. Others could rent copies out using DRM for a specified time period. Others could buy the material outright at a reduced price with compensation going to the copyright holder.
Can anyone please explain to me how the above system would hurt a single person? Sure DRM could be broken, but those who would do that would be in the vast minority. Commercial "intellectual property" enterprises would still be completely viable. For example, most people wouldn't stop buying CDs because they can get a free copy at the cost of a hassle--otherwise unused CD sales would have altogether stopped years ago. And yet, the material would still be available to those in the public who desired to have the information--and that could make all the difference in the new knowledge-based world economic environment.
But it'll never happen. Because content producers and distributors are behind the reins, copyright has for decades ceased to actually promote the Arts and Sciences, and most people, being products of our wonderful public education system, are too ignorant to understand the whole concept of "intellectual property."
-Grym