Only if you live in some utopia can you allow these principles and not expect tyranny.
Yes it would be a utopia to allow unchecked use of these powers, or any power for that matter, and not expect tyranny. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I simply don't see this as a problem. People often trot out the canard "OK, we'll just go publish the nuclear launch codes". You know, I struggle to imagine a case in which that would be relevant to discovery. On the other hand, it's easy to see how this unchecked power of the executive is abused.
There's a reason cryptography has been used for thousands of years, complete disclosure is the equivalent of playing poker with your cards face up on the table. Look through a history book and you'll find countless cases where the discovery and manipulation of information changed a conflict. For example the cracking of German and Japanese codes in WWII gave the Allies a significant strategic advantage.
I don't see why that's a good thing. I don't want my architect to have immunity from being sued for doing a bad job. Why should I want my congressman to have immunity? Even if I were to agree for the sake of argument that individuals need protection from lawsuits, the state itself should never ever be immune.
It would be more like suing the building inspector because your house doesn't meet code. While I agree with you that individuals should have the right to sue government, unfortunately the opinions of the Supreme Court have upheld the doctrine of "sovereign immunity." What is needed is an amendment to the Constitution that repeals the 11th amendment and is explicit in defining what immunity (if any) extend to state and federal government.
That which can be abused will be abused.
All power can be abused. In a functional society individuals must give certain power to the social authority. Governance is a dynamic process, and the involvement of individuals is essential to prevent abuses of powers.
Find me a politician who will abolish these principles and I will vote enthusiastically.
If you really feel so strongly, then organize and support a politician who shares your desire.
If it's a sound military strategy, it wouldn't matter if it's posted or not. Good strategies are ones that guarantee victory before the battle's even started.
Defeating an enemy when they know your strategy demonstrates tactical superiority, since you would be facing the enemy at their absolute best. Basically it's just showing that your force is so overwhelming that the opponent doesn't have the capacity to stop it. "No plan survives contact with the enemy." Sound military strategy works to manage resources to create the greatest advantage when that contact occurs. The goal is to tilt the odds in your favor as much as possible; because it's not just about victory, it's about winning with the least loss of resources. Unlike in chess, there are "style points" in war for not losing pieces. Deception, secrecy, intelligence, and counter-intelligence are vital components to this end. They allow a force to succeed in situations where they'd otherwise lose, and reduce the losses when victory is a foregone conclusion. History has shown time and again the importance of keeping your secrets and uncovering the enemy's.
"State secrets" and "sovereign immunity" are two concepts that have no place in any democratic country.
Only if you live in some utopia. "State secrets" are necessary for proper defense. It is vital to protect certain information such that the US retains strategic and technological advantages and does not reveal areas of weakness that can be exploited. "Sovereign immunity" is a concept to prevent individuals from being sued for doing their job. It is actually a check in the balance of power to prevent individuals from abuse of the judiciary against the legislative and executive branches. For example such immunity prevents lawsuits against a representative because of how they vote.
While both are necessary, the powers they provide are potentially abusive. Therefore it is vital that the public monitor and challenge officials on how these legal protections are used. A working democracy demands that individuals are consistently involved and voice their opinion to challenge government. It is "voter apathy" that is a concept that has no place in a democratic country.
It is my position that Bush was a horrible president because he weakened our constitution, was an ugly warmonger, and spent money like it was water.
You mean like FDR and Lincoln?
Both "sides" treat the populace like we're their own public goatse waiting patiently to get stretched just a bit wider by some Republican prick or a Democratic cock.
They do so because the populace asks for it. With a generally apathetic public, the only ones trying to influence policy are those with special interests. So you have leadership catering to the vocal minority, because they are the only ones who care.
i don't think there's any need for intellectual property nowadays. we can share all information on the internet at no cost, so why don't we?
There is no cost to distribute, but there is cost to create. A TV show, movie, or song doesn't just magically appear and post itself online. Get rid of intellectual property protections and you lose investment. What you'd end up with is basically the "artistry" of Youtube videos and Myspace bands. Amateur hacks and baseballs to the crotch, Yay. Even the good stuff usually is lacking in production value.
intellectual property (which is a very strange term, by the way) laws were useful to organize distribution of knowledge, when distributing knowledge was difficult, but now we've solved that problem, so we don't need laws to govern who has access when to what, everybody can have access to everything all the time
Actually the opposite is true. Once the distribution got mostly solved by the printing press, people started creating intellectual property laws. They realized there are things that are valuable, require resources to make, but aren't tangible and can be infinitely reproduced. So rules have been devised to handle these commodities. In fact, the more technology allows information to be distributed the more rules we come up with. We have thousands of rules to protect our identity and privacy that just weren't needed a few decades ago.
indeed that is with modern technology the default position, and we should rather change society to reflect technology than change technology to reflect society. i am not aware of a single country that criminalized the car in order to protect the profits of horse studs
I'm also not aware of a single country that controlled the emissions of horse drawn buggies, new technology means new rules. The domestication of plants and animals led to the concept of physical property, the printing press led to the concept of intellectual property; new technology, new rules. After 10,000 years we're still trying to figure out how to handle physical property, we've only been working on the intellectual property problem for 600.
Maybe intellectual property is a concept that makes no sense once we're all part of a big something. Or maybe it does. Though I would be extra careful these days for profit disguised as ethics. And that's pretty much what this whole copyright issue looks to me. I think that if there is any genuine effort and will to protect the interest of the people who create, I wouldn't be surprised that it'd lie mostly with the so-called pirates than with giant corporative institutions that seem to be guided by their corporative profits of which only a very small percentage goes to ones they're supposed to protect. I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the pirates.
Both corporations and pirates primarily act in their own interests. The protection of the creator's well-being is of secondary concern, only important to ensure further creative works. I would argue that corporate stances better protect the creator, while the attitude of pirates better fosters creativity.
While corporations pay a "small percentage," it is only because the artist agrees to that compensation. The same legal protections that *AA use against pirates, also force them to come to an agreement with the originator. The big labels are primarily marketing machines, and would find ways to profit without copyright. Some business structure would profit, only without copyright, the individual artist would be completely out of luck. American Idol is a perfect example of marketing over artistry. I'm sure they'd love it even more if they didn't need to pay royalties for all the songs they butcher.
The individual interest, often in the form of profit, is what inspires investment. Generating ideas and art requires time, money, and resources. Legal protections enable a greater number of professionals who craft the valuable, yet intangible. Individual profit motive also has the ironic effect of catering to the wants of the masses. Instead of making what he or she wants, to maximize profits they need to please the public. Do you think millionaire white guys would ever have invested and promoted gangsta' rap without profit?
On the other hand, pirates play an important role by promoting trade and distribution. The free flow and use of information is vital to the creative process. Every node of information has an exponential effect on the expansion of knowledge. The methods and tools pirates develop have greatly advanced the capability of humanity. They share and preserve knowledge that would otherwise be forgotten or held ransom by individual interests.
The ideal system is some balance between the two philosophies. A method to promote individuals to invest resources, while also giving them the freedom necessary to create. Copyright is meant to serve as this compromise, however, it has not kept up with technology. Personally, I think we've gone too far with protectionism, and have a system that is hurting much more than it is helping; but I also don't want the pendulum to go to far the other way because that too would lead to a less than ideal condition.
In reality, the copyright debate is just a subset of the long-standing conflict between the rights of individuals vs the rights of society; a problem with as many different answers as there are people in the world.
it all seems to me that these people - most of them worthless people that never did anything useful for the world - are committed to destroy one of the most significant invention - if not THE most significant invention - of all times.
The organization and management of labor and resources to produce goods and services is not worthless. There are millions of skilled people sitting around unemployed, why don't they just work?
As Obama said in his inauguration speech: "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished."
Those who connect diverse labor skills and resources to meet the needs and wants of the public play a vital role in the world economy. Rarely do groups spontaneously organize with the foresight of potential demand, and expertise to create appropriate commodities. It's the "do nothing" leaders that conceive new opportunities and guide overall economic expansion.
That's not to say executives are some great divine force. They are merely workers with different responsibilities. Like anyone else, some are good hard-workers, other greedy bastards. The difference is their decisions both positive and negative are magnified because of the amount of capital they influence. While our economy suffers more from corrupt executives, what they do isn't fundamentally different from the fast food guy who steals from the register, gives his friends free food, and fakes his time card.
Because when you come to think about it, the Internet is exactly what a lot of people have tried to accomplish throughout the millennia. Nations and empires were forged and razed, people killed and died by the millions to ultimately reach this simple goal: connect everyone.
It's also exactly the opposite of what a lot of people have tried to accomplish. Nations and empires were destroyed and millions killed to keep outsiders away
These people, intentionally or not, want to destroy this. I think we need to raise people's awareness to this issue. The Internet is not just a network. It is the network. It allows for every single person on this planet and eventually beyond to be connected to everyone else simultaneously! I think it is of the upmost importance we fight to stop this censoring and mutilation of the Internet and preserve the recent ability our species has to global and total communication.
Technology always outpaces ethics. We are still in the process of resolving the philosophical questions surrounding a change that so greatly challenges our social foundations. Global and total communication on the surface seems great, but it has some really scary potential. How do we classify and handle information? Should we mutilate the potential of the internet by censoring medical records, restrict access to home net cams, delete car GPS logs? Would an individual have the right to be off the net and subvert the ideal of everybody connected to everyone and everything?
As you imply, many of our old concepts have become antiquated and need to evolve to meet the needs of the new world. As the world economy becomes more virtual and interconnected does "intellectual property" require more or less protection? Right now it's the old guard trying to protect their profit margins. But it gives us the opportunity to ask and debate how we handle intangible assets. It's important we try to answer these questions before the world economy become so online and virtual that cloning an object is potentially more dangerous than toxic dumping.
What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.
The game is politics, not war
As others have mentioned, they don't benefit from nuking Japan, they benefit from the ability to nuke Japan. The threat of violence is often a more powerful political tool than actually committing violence. The reaction to a North Korean nuclear strike would greatly depend on the scope, level of casualties, and capabilities for further destruction. Complete annihilation of Japan would surely result in a glowing North Korea. However, hitting Japan with a single nuke may not result in nuclear counterattack. Any retaliation would be muted by political pressure from Russia and China, fear of enormous civilian death tolls, and the potential spread of radioactive fallout. Think any neighbors want a nuclear counterattack given their land and water could be poisoned? Limited nuclear action against Japan would likely receive only a conventional response, Iraq style invasion. The North Korean government may think it possible they could "win" such a scenario.
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Total control. Trade leads to the introduction of foreign ideas, which could destabilize the existing social structures. People, especially those with wealth and power, fear potential changes in government, economics, and culture. Isolationism is not unprecedented, Japan went through such a period which only ended after some gunboat diplomacy by the US.
US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war, and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.
North Korean isolationism stems from their own foreign policies. The US trades with communist China and Vietnam, while Europe also trades with Cuba.
We'll leave aside the problem that nobody has demonstrated the existence of negative mass, I personally don't believe it could exist precisely because it would enable FTL, but that's seperate to this point
Just because negative mass hasn't been experimentally demonstrated, doesn't mean it hasn't been seriously postulated. Further, you would only need something that behaves like a negative mass. For example in solid state physics an electron can have different effective masses, including negative values. What's required is the property of bending space-time the opposite direction of gravity. This could come from an exotic particle either with negative mass, or positive mass with negative gravitational constant. It could also come from clever exploitation of physics to create a "negative mass field," or even some new discoveries that change our understanding of the rules of the universe.
It means inevitably that half of the negative mass you are using has to stick out of the bubble ahead of you into normal unwarped space, and so that in order to keep generating the field ahead of you, it has to travel faster than light in its local frame. That is strictly not allowed.
We are children still learning the rules of the game, we can't reasonably say "That is strictly not allowed"
What makes you think that new developments in physics will contradict that E=MC^2?
In short, physics is further and further refined by research, not contradicted, because new theories don't change the empirical evidence that was used to determine old theories, they just explain it better.
Theoretical physics can, and has been contradicted by experimental physics. Refinement sometimes means dismissing old ideas, revisiting old ideas, or throw everything out the window and start over. Theories may fail to account for new data and need to be modified, or shown to be intrinsicly flawed. String theory and cosmological constant were considered, dismissed for a period, then later reconsidered. The long-standing concept of aether was abandoned once theoretical and experimental discoveries rendered it unnecessary. At the most extreme, changes in the discipline may be necessary to further develop human knowledge. Alchemy and natural philosophy evolved into modern chemistry and physics. These fundamental shifts did not change the empirical evidence, nor throw out all of the previous concepts, but they significantly changed how we gather and interpret such evidence.
It may be possible that at some point in the future, physics evolves into a new discipline that interprets our universe differently and comes up with solutions to problems we thought impossible. At the very least, there are lots of paths in existing physics to explore which may give us faster than light travel.
With current technology, software is still somewhere in between physical goods and services. While there are increasingly more service type applications, treating software purely as a service doesn't work in many cases, especially in the business world. For example, if a company wants productivity software to improve their shipping/receiving - they would need to contract a software company, or develop in-house. You can bet the code will be locked down in NDAs and other legal trappings. So another company with similar business processes would end up having to develop their own software separately. This scenario is less efficient than a software company producing and licensing software to both businesses.
It's reasonable for an artist to expect to be able to profit from their work for a period of time. Protecting that right encourages others to spend the time to create similar work.
It is economically reasonable for an artist to expect the opportunity to make a profit, such that they will invest in the creation of a new product. The guarantee of profit is not needed to encourage professional creativity. The artist merely needs to think they have a good chance at profit. The balance of copyright is one of optimization. It should try to create the greatest volume of "art" while making it accessible to the public as quickly as possible. If most Hollywood films net 95% of their profits in the first 5 years (just throwing out numbers as an example), slashing copyright protections to 10 years won't significantly impact the level of investment in new films.
In conclusion, the only people who actually benefit from copyright are the distributors. Musicians are not distributors. It's a hard business to distribute music, and it's much harder thanks to copyright. That's it's whole point. To keep competition out. Disturbingly, competition in the mainstream music industry almost always includes the artists themselves.
Big media doesn't just distribute, distribution is in fact very easy. The hard business is marketing, which is the main service record companies provide. Copyright isn't stopping artists from sharing their works online or through independent internet/radio stations - the demand just isn't there. A good example of what big media does is American Idol. They grab a bunch of mediocre, but marketable singers, have them sing unoriginal music, and use marketing to prepackage an instant hit. Imagine some record company hears your music, decides to take it, have it sung by 4 hot chicks, puts them on tour, and maybe get a reality show. Without copyright the original artist would get nothing from the deal, while the record company rakes in the cash. At least with copyright, you the artist, have the choice to sell-out and make money or let your art remain in obscurity.
As long as the old ones are still worth something. With my 401k tanking, the boxes of cards collecting dust in my closet are my only hope for retirement.
What? they were supposed to learn that their bussiness model can be better? that most new games cost way too much? that is not required to have a great studio spending millions of dollars to make a great game (World of Goo comes to mind, their "studio" was pretty much any coffe shop with free wi-fi)?
They are learning how to improve their business model. Games as a service, whether subscription like MMOs or micropayments for upgrades (tied to an online account), are becoming more popular. Companies have much more legal power to control selling of accounts on their server than they do plastic discs.
I could easily predict what titles will only sell a few hundred thousand copies just by reading design proposals. Where can I sign up to be paid for this cost cutting service?
You're more likely to make a profit by spending $1000 producing a crappy game; then tag on Star Wars, Pokemon, Mario, or "Hot new Movie of the Month" to the title
Whether you chose to shout your comments from the gallery or in front of a microphone, the right to express one's opinion -on any subject- should not be subject to persecution by any person. That is why it is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To the citizens of the burgeoning republic, there was nothing more important than the right to speak freely and without retribution.
The protection of the first amendment is to prevent persecution by the government. In fact the first amendment allows a certain level of "persecution" by protecting free speech (counter arguments, satire, protest) and freedom of association (not associate with those you disagree with)
A highschool science class isnt suppose to teach you to be a theoretical scientist, its there to give you the basic knowledge regarding the natural world so you understand why the world is the way it is, and why natural processes work the way they do. By focusing on obscurities from fringe areas relating to each theory you take away the time that is needed to teach students the basics.
You don't have to go through every fringe idea, but it's helpful to go through the historical development and how each step address faults of previous theories. Same as another poster mentioned how the atomic model evolved from the early "indivisible models" which accounted for different atomic weights, to the "plum-pudding model" which accounts for electro-magnetic properties. Finishing with the Bohr-Rutherford model with a nucleus with orbiting electrons that explain quantum and other effects. Though not a full description, it's enough to give an adequate general background that a high school student should know. This method reinforce the scientific process. Similarly Evolution should be taught from the point of view of historic development. Creationist ideas did contribute to biological organization which crudely showed the association between creatures. Later the mechanics of such associations was explained by Darwin's theory of natural selection. And new discoveries have further refined Darwin's theories.
Something else that should be emphasized when teaching students about science, is that science != truth. Rather than forcing people to accept evolution or creationism as truth; the focus should be showing that evolution is a model that can be applied to explain historical biological changes, as well as a useful tool in future developments in genetics. Even if creationism is the "truth," such a theory lacks the practical application of natural selection mechanics. You don't need to say creationism is "false," just that from a scientific perspective it isn't useful.
What is the cost of training an astronaut and putting her in orbit vs. the cost of buying a foreigner lunch every so often (or all the time) in order to foster an atmosphere of cooperation? We now have less effective teams in space. As a taxpayer, I feel ripped off.
Imagine your roomate constantly have friends come over that eat your food, soil your toilet, and use your gym equipment without wiping it down. You'll probably have a brief squabble with your roomie and tell him to leave your stuff alone, until you come up with new agreeable rules. This is basic short-lived territorialism when somebody doesn't respect your boundaries.
You'd just find new things to squabble over. Petty things, like a bottle of fine wine (synthahol just don't cut it), a table at the bar, who cheated at pool/chess, women, who is the redshirt who has to beam down with the officers to the planet of horrifying death.
From the theory of gravity to the theory of the atom, spending time discussing the basis of scientific consensus will prevent students from getting very deep into any topic.
Such discussions would result in students reviewing subjects in more depth, not less. Instead of just accepting an explaination of gravity or the structure of an atom, students will need to understand how the scientific models were constructed. For example a student will learn more about science on the atomic scale if they reviewed the historical steps and theoretical changes which contributed to the current model of the atom.
Examining the pros and cons of competing theories creates a deeper understanding of the subject, and ideally inspires students to investigate ways to improve our model of the universe
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it would be a utopia to allow unchecked use of these powers, or any power for that matter, and not expect tyranny. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
There's a reason cryptography has been used for thousands of years, complete disclosure is the equivalent of playing poker with your cards face up on the table. Look through a history book and you'll find countless cases where the discovery and manipulation of information changed a conflict. For example the cracking of German and Japanese codes in WWII gave the Allies a significant strategic advantage.
It would be more like suing the building inspector because your house doesn't meet code. While I agree with you that individuals should have the right to sue government, unfortunately the opinions of the Supreme Court have upheld the doctrine of "sovereign immunity." What is needed is an amendment to the Constitution that repeals the 11th amendment and is explicit in defining what immunity (if any) extend to state and federal government.
All power can be abused. In a functional society individuals must give certain power to the social authority. Governance is a dynamic process, and the involvement of individuals is essential to prevent abuses of powers.
If you really feel so strongly, then organize and support a politician who shares your desire.
Defeating an enemy when they know your strategy demonstrates tactical superiority, since you would be facing the enemy at their absolute best. Basically it's just showing that your force is so overwhelming that the opponent doesn't have the capacity to stop it.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Sound military strategy works to manage resources to create the greatest advantage when that contact occurs. The goal is to tilt the odds in your favor as much as possible; because it's not just about victory, it's about winning with the least loss of resources. Unlike in chess, there are "style points" in war for not losing pieces.
Deception, secrecy, intelligence, and counter-intelligence are vital components to this end. They allow a force to succeed in situations where they'd otherwise lose, and reduce the losses when victory is a foregone conclusion. History has shown time and again the importance of keeping your secrets and uncovering the enemy's.
Only if you live in some utopia.
"State secrets" are necessary for proper defense. It is vital to protect certain information such that the US retains strategic and technological advantages and does not reveal areas of weakness that can be exploited.
"Sovereign immunity" is a concept to prevent individuals from being sued for doing their job. It is actually a check in the balance of power to prevent individuals from abuse of the judiciary against the legislative and executive branches. For example such immunity prevents lawsuits against a representative because of how they vote.
While both are necessary, the powers they provide are potentially abusive. Therefore it is vital that the public monitor and challenge officials on how these legal protections are used.
A working democracy demands that individuals are consistently involved and voice their opinion to challenge government. It is "voter apathy" that is a concept that has no place in a democratic country.
You mean like FDR and Lincoln?
They do so because the populace asks for it. With a generally apathetic public, the only ones trying to influence policy are those with special interests. So you have leadership catering to the vocal minority, because they are the only ones who care.
There is no cost to distribute, but there is cost to create. A TV show, movie, or song doesn't just magically appear and post itself online. Get rid of intellectual property protections and you lose investment. What you'd end up with is basically the "artistry" of Youtube videos and Myspace bands. Amateur hacks and baseballs to the crotch, Yay. Even the good stuff usually is lacking in production value.
Actually the opposite is true. Once the distribution got mostly solved by the printing press, people started creating intellectual property laws. They realized there are things that are valuable, require resources to make, but aren't tangible and can be infinitely reproduced. So rules have been devised to handle these commodities. In fact, the more technology allows information to be distributed the more rules we come up with. We have thousands of rules to protect our identity and privacy that just weren't needed a few decades ago.
I'm also not aware of a single country that controlled the emissions of horse drawn buggies, new technology means new rules. The domestication of plants and animals led to the concept of physical property, the printing press led to the concept of intellectual property; new technology, new rules. After 10,000 years we're still trying to figure out how to handle physical property, we've only been working on the intellectual property problem for 600.
Both corporations and pirates primarily act in their own interests. The protection of the creator's well-being is of secondary concern, only important to ensure further creative works. I would argue that corporate stances better protect the creator, while the attitude of pirates better fosters creativity.
While corporations pay a "small percentage," it is only because the artist agrees to that compensation. The same legal protections that *AA use against pirates, also force them to come to an agreement with the originator. The big labels are primarily marketing machines, and would find ways to profit without copyright. Some business structure would profit, only without copyright, the individual artist would be completely out of luck. American Idol is a perfect example of marketing over artistry. I'm sure they'd love it even more if they didn't need to pay royalties for all the songs they butcher.
The individual interest, often in the form of profit, is what inspires investment. Generating ideas and art requires time, money, and resources. Legal protections enable a greater number of professionals who craft the valuable, yet intangible. Individual profit motive also has the ironic effect of catering to the wants of the masses. Instead of making what he or she wants, to maximize profits they need to please the public. Do you think millionaire white guys would ever have invested and promoted gangsta' rap without profit?
On the other hand, pirates play an important role by promoting trade and distribution. The free flow and use of information is vital to the creative process. Every node of information has an exponential effect on the expansion of knowledge. The methods and tools pirates develop have greatly advanced the capability of humanity. They share and preserve knowledge that would otherwise be forgotten or held ransom by individual interests.
The ideal system is some balance between the two philosophies. A method to promote individuals to invest resources, while also giving them the freedom necessary to create. Copyright is meant to serve as this compromise, however, it has not kept up with technology.
Personally, I think we've gone too far with protectionism, and have a system that is hurting much more than it is helping; but I also don't want the pendulum to go to far the other way because that too would lead to a less than ideal condition.
In reality, the copyright debate is just a subset of the long-standing conflict between the rights of individuals vs the rights of society; a problem with as many different answers as there are people in the world.
The organization and management of labor and resources to produce goods and services is not worthless. There are millions of skilled people sitting around unemployed, why don't they just work?
As Obama said in his inauguration speech:
"Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished."
Those who connect diverse labor skills and resources to meet the needs and wants of the public play a vital role in the world economy. Rarely do groups spontaneously organize with the foresight of potential demand, and expertise to create appropriate commodities. It's the "do nothing" leaders that conceive new opportunities and guide overall economic expansion.
That's not to say executives are some great divine force. They are merely workers with different responsibilities.
Like anyone else, some are good hard-workers, other greedy bastards. The difference is their decisions both positive and negative are magnified because of the amount of capital they influence. While our economy suffers more from corrupt executives, what they do isn't fundamentally different from the fast food guy who steals from the register, gives his friends free food, and fakes his time card.
It's also exactly the opposite of what a lot of people have tried to accomplish. Nations and empires were destroyed and millions killed to keep outsiders away
Technology always outpaces ethics.
We are still in the process of resolving the philosophical questions surrounding a change that so greatly challenges our social foundations. Global and total communication on the surface seems great, but it has some really scary potential.
How do we classify and handle information? Should we mutilate the potential of the internet by censoring medical records, restrict access to home net cams, delete car GPS logs? Would an individual have the right to be off the net and subvert the ideal of everybody connected to everyone and everything?
As you imply, many of our old concepts have become antiquated and need to evolve to meet the needs of the new world. As the world economy becomes more virtual and interconnected does "intellectual property" require more or less protection?
Right now it's the old guard trying to protect their profit margins. But it gives us the opportunity to ask and debate how we handle intangible assets. It's important we try to answer these questions before the world economy become so online and virtual that cloning an object is potentially more dangerous than toxic dumping.
The game is politics, not war
As others have mentioned, they don't benefit from nuking Japan, they benefit from the ability to nuke Japan. The threat of violence is often a more powerful political tool than actually committing violence.
The reaction to a North Korean nuclear strike would greatly depend on the scope, level of casualties, and capabilities for further destruction.
Complete annihilation of Japan would surely result in a glowing North Korea. However, hitting Japan with a single nuke may not result in nuclear counterattack.
Any retaliation would be muted by political pressure from Russia and China, fear of enormous civilian death tolls, and the potential spread of radioactive fallout. Think any neighbors want a nuclear counterattack given their land and water could be poisoned?
Limited nuclear action against Japan would likely receive only a conventional response, Iraq style invasion. The North Korean government may think it possible they could "win" such a scenario.
Total control. Trade leads to the introduction of foreign ideas, which could destabilize the existing social structures. People, especially those with wealth and power, fear potential changes in government, economics, and culture. Isolationism is not unprecedented, Japan went through such a period which only ended after some gunboat diplomacy by the US.
North Korean isolationism stems from their own foreign policies. The US trades with communist China and Vietnam, while Europe also trades with Cuba.
Or make a giant margarita
Just because negative mass hasn't been experimentally demonstrated, doesn't mean it hasn't been seriously postulated. Further, you would only need something that behaves like a negative mass. For example in solid state physics an electron can have different effective masses, including negative values.
What's required is the property of bending space-time the opposite direction of gravity. This could come from an exotic particle either with negative mass, or positive mass with negative gravitational constant. It could also come from clever exploitation of physics to create a "negative mass field," or even some new discoveries that change our understanding of the rules of the universe.
We are children still learning the rules of the game, we can't reasonably say "That is strictly not allowed"
There are a number of accepted theories that could lead to paradoxes, you shouldn't just dismiss FTL for that reason.
Theoretical physics can, and has been contradicted by experimental physics. Refinement sometimes means dismissing old ideas, revisiting old ideas, or throw everything out the window and start over. Theories may fail to account for new data and need to be modified, or shown to be intrinsicly flawed. String theory and cosmological constant were considered, dismissed for a period, then later reconsidered. The long-standing concept of aether was abandoned once theoretical and experimental discoveries rendered it unnecessary.
At the most extreme, changes in the discipline may be necessary to further develop human knowledge. Alchemy and natural philosophy evolved into modern chemistry and physics. These fundamental shifts did not change the empirical evidence, nor throw out all of the previous concepts, but they significantly changed how we gather and interpret such evidence.
It may be possible that at some point in the future, physics evolves into a new discipline that interprets our universe differently and comes up with solutions to problems we thought impossible. At the very least, there are lots of paths in existing physics to explore which may give us faster than light travel.
Depends on which universe
With current technology, software is still somewhere in between physical goods and services. While there are increasingly more service type applications, treating software purely as a service doesn't work in many cases, especially in the business world.
For example, if a company wants productivity software to improve their shipping/receiving - they would need to contract a software company, or develop in-house. You can bet the code will be locked down in NDAs and other legal trappings. So another company with similar business processes would end up having to develop their own software separately.
This scenario is less efficient than a software company producing and licensing software to both businesses.
It is economically reasonable for an artist to expect the opportunity to make a profit, such that they will invest in the creation of a new product.
The guarantee of profit is not needed to encourage professional creativity. The artist merely needs to think they have a good chance at profit.
The balance of copyright is one of optimization. It should try to create the greatest volume of "art" while making it accessible to the public as quickly as possible. If most Hollywood films net 95% of their profits in the first 5 years (just throwing out numbers as an example), slashing copyright protections to 10 years won't significantly impact the level of investment in new films.
Big media doesn't just distribute, distribution is in fact very easy. The hard business is marketing, which is the main service record companies provide. Copyright isn't stopping artists from sharing their works online or through independent internet/radio stations - the demand just isn't there.
A good example of what big media does is American Idol. They grab a bunch of mediocre, but marketable singers, have them sing unoriginal music, and use marketing to prepackage an instant hit.
Imagine some record company hears your music, decides to take it, have it sung by 4 hot chicks, puts them on tour, and maybe get a reality show. Without copyright the original artist would get nothing from the deal, while the record company rakes in the cash. At least with copyright, you the artist, have the choice to sell-out and make money or let your art remain in obscurity.
As long as the old ones are still worth something. With my 401k tanking, the boxes of cards collecting dust in my closet are my only hope for retirement.
They are learning how to improve their business model. Games as a service, whether subscription like MMOs or micropayments for upgrades (tied to an online account), are becoming more popular. Companies have much more legal power to control selling of accounts on their server than they do plastic discs.
Supply and demand is an economic concept, capitalism and communism are different methods to deal with it.
You're more likely to make a profit by spending $1000 producing a crappy game; then tag on Star Wars, Pokemon, Mario, or "Hot new Movie of the Month" to the title
The protection of the first amendment is to prevent persecution by the government.
In fact the first amendment allows a certain level of "persecution" by protecting free speech (counter arguments, satire, protest) and freedom of association (not associate with those you disagree with)
You don't have to go through every fringe idea, but it's helpful to go through the historical development and how each step address faults of previous theories. Same as another poster mentioned how the atomic model evolved from the early "indivisible models" which accounted for different atomic weights, to the "plum-pudding model" which accounts for electro-magnetic properties.
Finishing with the Bohr-Rutherford model with a nucleus with orbiting electrons that explain quantum and other effects. Though not a full description, it's enough to give an adequate general background that a high school student should know. This method reinforce the scientific process.
Similarly Evolution should be taught from the point of view of historic development. Creationist ideas did contribute to biological organization which crudely showed the association between creatures. Later the mechanics of such associations was explained by Darwin's theory of natural selection. And new discoveries have further refined Darwin's theories.
Something else that should be emphasized when teaching students about science, is that science != truth.
Rather than forcing people to accept evolution or creationism as truth; the focus should be showing that evolution is a model that can be applied to explain historical biological changes, as well as a useful tool in future developments in genetics.
Even if creationism is the "truth," such a theory lacks the practical application of natural selection mechanics. You don't need to say creationism is "false," just that from a scientific perspective it isn't useful.
Imagine your roomate constantly have friends come over that eat your food, soil your toilet, and use your gym equipment without wiping it down.
You'll probably have a brief squabble with your roomie and tell him to leave your stuff alone, until you come up with new agreeable rules. This is basic short-lived territorialism when somebody doesn't respect your boundaries.
You'd just find new things to squabble over.
Petty things, like a bottle of fine wine (synthahol just don't cut it), a table at the bar, who cheated at pool/chess, women, who is the redshirt who has to beam down with the officers to the planet of horrifying death.
Such discussions would result in students reviewing subjects in more depth, not less.
Instead of just accepting an explaination of gravity or the structure of an atom, students will need to understand how the scientific models were constructed.
For example a student will learn more about science on the atomic scale if they reviewed the historical steps and theoretical changes which contributed to the current model of the atom.
Examining the pros and cons of competing theories creates a deeper understanding of the subject, and ideally inspires students to investigate ways to improve our model of the universe