It is a sad fact that some of the things that help the citizens of a nation help all corporations that do business in that nation... and that means that a corporation that is doing those things is helping its competitor. That could mean that strategically undermining a nation may in fact boost profits for a corporate entity which can do things to hurt its competitors and find ways around that damage to make itself more competitive.
There are two ways to grow profits, one is to take a larger share of the market, the second is to grow the market. Cooperation is needed within the industry to grow it, so most corporations participate in trade organizations that are designed to help the entire industry not just individual companies. Industries as whole see value in things like standards, regulatory agreements, and an educated workforce and will take active roles to promote their agenda. For example the industry organization will work on behalf of the members to define environmental guidelines with the government. The reason is, no individual company wants to work on it alone and risk ending up on the wrong side of the law when they are written. They prefer an even playing field for the whole industry on such regulatory matters.
The interesting thing is that Governments create jobs using red-tape.
Red Tape is the worst way to govern. It prices out the small businesses and gives outs to larger company compliance. The problem government has right now is it is too far in favor of corporate interests. I'm not saying "down with the machine," but a more moderate approach is needed to prevent abuses of the system.
like comparing counterfeiting money with copyright infringement... wow
Money and music are both items whose value is derived from artificial scarcity due to legal restrictions. Face it, there are things that are not physical which we consider valuable, so we create laws to protect them, like our identities.
That's stupid. Stop making me think you're an idiot.
I didn't realize animals didn't obey thermodynamics and all the grain they eat is directly converted into meat. The recent runup in food prices comes from the increase in meat consumption, particularly in Asia and increased use of ethanol fuel, you don't drive do you? If excess capacity was not kept in the past current food problems would be worse. Farmers now don't need to destroy crops, they can use that land now to grow crops because it is profitable.
No they don't. People go to bars to socialize; to meet people; to chase women; to listen to music; for a lot of other reasons. You can drink at home for a WHOLE lot cheaper than at a bar. Nobody goes to a bar to drink. You might try visiting one sometime when you're old enough.
True, I meant drink in the social sense as in "going out to drink with friends." Rarely when I go out do my friends choose a place based on the band, unless its one of our friends playing. Live music is about as important as the decorating, it will help with the atmosphere but most people won't go because of it.
From what I've read, most P2P downloaders are downloading because the last CD they bought had one song they liked and they don't want their hard-earned money to be stolen again by the RIAA frauds. Most of what's downloaded gets erased PDQ, and what little good stuff that's found results in a sale.
Most of the people on slashdot are like that, but that's not a good representation of most of the population. Most intelligent will see downloading as a tool to make judgements on music; but the masses just see it as a way
to get free music.
I won't say it's all dreck, just >99% of it. Kind of like the indies, who aren't suing their customers but instead posting their music on MySpace. There is only a lot more good indie music because there is a lot more indie music.
Again, what is the problem since indie music is legal to download if they choose to allow it. If you don't like the RIAA music, just don't consume. Don't buy, don't download, don't give them any reason to think there is a market.
The US economy was based on farming until the middle of the 20th century. Your ignorance is astounding.
That's great, if you want to go back to early 20th century living. Much of the 3rd world has primarily agrarian, that's not exactly the type of economy I would hope for.
Wow, that's past ignorant and into self-delusion. Please take your Haldol.
What's the difference between an iPod and competitors? It's not the materials ("Less space than a nomad"), not the manufacture (everything is made in China), it's the IP - The software and the design.
Keep those reciepts and they won't. Bits are easy to change. I don't understand how anyone who understands how computers work can trust bits. I don't.
Why stop at the bits? The money itself is an asset whose only scarecity is the artificial ones put in place. Counterfeiting money is a crime just as copying IP is a crime.
Actually people are starving because of politics - the politics of greed.
Yes that's the point, the food destroyed isn't causing starvation.
Regardless, destroying food is wrong
So that means you eat everything you buy, otherwise you are destroying food. Are you also a vegetarian, since meat based diets are far more inefficient and lead to higher grain prices.
You have no evidence of that, because there is none. The statement is false.
The people who make music free already make it now, the only market change is for profit music will be significantly reduced, so overall the amount of music will decrease.
Funny, the bars here in Springfield are all jam packed when there's a band. Like the Confederate said to the Northerner in "Outlaw Josey Wales, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining, Senator".
What music gets downloaded? People will go to bars to drink, and will choose the ones with the best entertainment, they do not necessarily go strictly for the entertainment.
The major labels aren't producing anything listenable which is why they're having trouble.
They produce stuff that isn't listenable, yet it's the stuff that gets downloaded, a bit of a conflict.
Food is not something to build an economy on, it's a means to support your society. Manufactured goods continue to become commoditized like food. Modern technology is based on IP. The value of technology is increasingly design, the manufacture is cheap. Labor is increasingly being replaced by automation, so long term you can't support an economy with manufacturing. Creating designs and other IP then leveraging cheap manufacturing to accomplish it is the direction the economy is heading.
The value of an iPod is the fact that it's real. It is a tangible item that does what people want it to do, and does it well. "Find (or create) a need and fill it."
There are many items to do exactly the same thing, it's the design aspect that is important. Creativity is what gives value to products these days.
In your example, the bits aren't the money, they merely count it. They have no value whatever to anyone but the banker. In a music CD, the bits are supposed to BE the money, completely unlike the data that flows between banks.
Just a few changes to the bits you are sending to the bank changes will cause a real change in money. It isn't just counting money, it is telling the various machines how to behave. Just as on a CD the bits themselves are useless to the listener other than they tell the speakers how to behave.
There's nothing rational about destroying food when there are people starving. That's just self-serving evil. The kind of self-serving evil that mammon worshipers support. I do not subscribe to your religion.
You do realize the reason most people are starving is because of transport of food. Look at Somalia where food is controlled by warlords, or Myanamar where food is sent but the government won't let it in. Further, maintaining the viability of farmers to have excess land is a buffer to prevent future starvation. Regular market forces would mean supply will meet demand and some farmers would go out of business, should natural disaster strike and supply drops the market can't regulate itself fast enough. Food production unlike other goods & services is a slow business. The purpose of having farmers destroy crops is to maintain inventories not to get rich.
I want music to be neither "goods" nor a "market". Music will continue to not only be made, but be recorded. The indies put their music on the internet for free. When the RIAA dies there will still be music. When the "music industry" dies there will still be music.
There will be music, just less of it, and especially less music that people want to listen to. People don't listen to indie music even though it's free, they'd rather spend money and listen to the music pumped out by the labels.
The same goes for films. The cost of recording music has dropped to the point that anyone with the most modest budget can record music, yet industry continues to charge as if recordings were expensive to make and distribute.
Again the cost to record music is cheap, the cost to find the talent and market bands that people want to listen to is still expensive.
The cost of making movies is likewise dropping. You can download an amateur-made movie that has better acting, directing, and special effects than many Hollywood films. There have been some real stinkers come out of the "industry", as anyone who has ever sat through a "B movie" knows.
Your example is passable for a "B" movie, so I guess the industry should abandon that niche which typically was done on low budget. While the special effects are excellent, the live action cinematography is lacking. As for acting & writing it's hard to tell from a trailer. Most amateur movies I've seen online have brilliance in writing, acting, or special effects, but rarely all three, and the live action filming and music are almost always lacking. So yes it's much cheaper to put together a good movie, but to put together a great one is expensive.
For the US to base its future economic growth on movies and music is past insanity, even past stupidity. If we don't get rid of the bought and paid for politicians and get some statesmen, we as a society are doomed.
Base our economy on what instead? Production of goods is not the way to go as automation continues to expand. The world is moving to more IP centric models, the value of an iPod is not the manufacture but the design, software is where much more valuable than hardware.
As to your "tragedy of the commons", the commons sustained itself for hundreds of years. "The tragedy of the commons" was a fiction put forth by landowners to grab the common lands for their own benefit. The tru
Which reasonable searches/seizures without due process should be rare, as due process is clearly (and expressly) the nearly exclusive means by which to initiate a search/seizure.
The protection is against "unreasonable search & seizure." Therefore reasonable searches without due process do not need to be rare, only unreasonable searches should be rare thereby requiring a warrant
"Reason" isn't an arbitrary standard.
Yes it is, the fact that two intelligent people can have a disagreement over what constitutes "reasonable" demonstrates that it is a vague standard to which arbitrary limits can be assigned. The three branches of government have consistently upheld international border searches are reasonable.
Of course longstanding traditions where they are consistent with liberty and a government created to protect it are roots of the US legal system and the Constitution that is its basis. But their status as traditions is not the basis.
Border crossing exception is consistent with the government conceived by the founders.
The word "reasonable" is the stated criterion because that is indeed the actual criterion. The stated rule explicitly states that a warrant is the means by which a reasonable search/seizure is executed.
I guess this is where we disagree. You state there is a single criteria - a reasonable search is one for which a warrant is issued; but the longstanding interpretation is that there are two criteria - 1) a reasonable search and 2) any search which is unreasonable requires a warrant to make it valid. By your interpretation there would be no possibility to have reasonable searches based on "reasonable suspicion" or "no reasonable expecation of privacy." While the second interpretation allows the search of bags and personal effects, while keeping intact protections against unreasonable searches like x-rays, or strip searches.
Longstanding traditions of foreign countries are not the basis for US law.
US law has its roots in Common Law, longstanding traditions and English court rulings that predated the establishment of the United States.
What other reason would the word "reasonable" be included in the 4th Amendment unless the writers belived that there would be instances where a search is expected so there is no need to have a warrant. "Reasonable" refers to the type of search in relation to the circumstances - like the 8th amendment "cruel & unusual" does not necessesarily address the punishment but how the punishment fits the circumstances. Given the "longstanding traditions" the types of searches done at the border are reasonable, while elsewhere they would be considered unreasonable.
If society wants to encourage innovation, they should simply come up with mechanisms to pool resources for funding applied research, and then make the results of that research available for any entrepreneurs who want to use it. This would be much more efficient & cause fewer market distortions than the mechanisms of intellectual property laws.
You want "normal" market forces, but want to replace a system that encourages the market to innovate, with one where innovation is done by a central social body? Essentially you replace a bunch of little monopolies with 1 big one. The point of IP is that by giving limited protections you foster risk taking. Look at the difference in what is produced by government sponsored art, and art developed by the market.
Just another example of a fringe case that the Court has left standing while Congress hasn't acted to clarify and fix the laws the Court uses to support its interpretations.
It's not really a fringe case given all the precedents cited. Without such an exception International border controls would essentially be useless, it would be like travel between states. People would not be required to produce papers, nor would they have to declare cargo for the purpose of taxation. The Court's ruling is based on the longstanding traditions of nations securing their borders that go beyond the existence of the US.
The Supreme Court has ruled for centuries that no search or seizure is reasonable without probable cause
"This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself." - US v Ramsey (1977)
Dude that's the whole point of the story! In Web 2.0 you don't even need a link so IBM is replacing servers with sideways water cooled racks, no electronics needed... think of the profit margins!
Re:Enormous congratulations to them all
on
The Phoenix Has Landed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Would you have said the same thing to people inventing the sailing ship all those moons ago?
It's apples & oranges - They didn't have the ability to send out automated ships to do exploration. Ships were sent out not for the mere purpose of exploration, but to discover trade opportunities. Explorers were travelling in a resource rich environment (food & water was likely available). And lastly the technology to send explorers was easily transferable to send settlers/tradesmen to profit from the voyage. Once technology matures to a similar point, then I'm all for sending people to Mars.
Other than the scientific achievements in doing this, there is the overall good it does to the human spirit to see ourselves as a race be able to conquer the distances, to think of a huge problem like this and surmount it with science.
The problem is the way such things are handled, with a political motive, we're more likely to have point solutions than real sustainable one. So then in the long run we end up having to reinvent the wheel (albeit with some previous learnings), because the original solution is not applicable for widespread use.
If it encourages kids to do more in the way of science rather than religious persecution etc., I'm all for it.
I doubt a Mars mission will have nearly the same cultural effect as the moon landing. Instead of showing kids a great achievement, spend only a fraction of the $80B it will cost to go to Mars and make them part of one. Sponsor student projects that actually would get launched into space, fund scholarships for space tourism trips.
My point is why spend so many resources to hurry up and wait (40 years later we still haven't returned to the moon), when those resources could more efficiently be used with a steady path of advancement. We'd get a lot more mileage enabling private sector space travel, and travel to the moon a regular basis, than a single sexy mission to Mars.
A human could probably do in a week or less what our rovers have done over their entire life. The same goes for phoenix.
Other than the ability to move they can't do much more than automated counterparts. Astronauts are still limited to the tools shipped to conduct experiments. The amount of science you can do per dollar is much higher for unmanned missions considering all the useless weight for supplies used to keep humans alive, which could be used for more experiments and equipment.
I agree space exploration leads to a lot of scientific advancement, but many of the "big" problems need to be solved whether you're putting an unmanned lander on the moon or a person. How much real science gets done on a manned mission than an unmanned one.
To have a successful landing of this sort on Mars is brilliant, and continues to build hope that there might be a manned mission there in my lifetime, I can only hope.
Other than the good feeling of putting a human on Mars what is the point? I'd rather see technology on Earth progress to the point where there insn't a reason to not send a person to Mars. Space races are all fine and dandy for countries to show off, but don't confuse such events with real scientific advancement.
I'd assume even if it bounced off it probably wouldn't have the momentum to escape Mars' gravity completely, so it would still land... just later than planned.
The idea is that they were poor, but gave everything they have for their religion... so wealthy people, why not give your money and live humble lives like the great prophets. It's a way to market religion for fundraising from the rich, while giving the poor the sense they are closer to God than the wealthy. Same reason money is treated as "evil" yet relgions happily enjoy great extravagancies.
Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds in an open casket so you can dig through the source
For example the industry organization will work on behalf of the members to define environmental guidelines with the government. The reason is, no individual company wants to work on it alone and risk ending up on the wrong side of the law when they are written. They prefer an even playing field for the whole industry on such regulatory matters.
Red Tape is the worst way to govern. It prices out the small businesses and gives outs to larger company compliance. The problem government has right now is it is too far in favor of corporate interests. I'm not saying "down with the machine," but a more moderate approach is needed to prevent abuses of the system.
I didn't realize animals didn't obey thermodynamics and all the grain they eat is directly converted into meat. The recent runup in food prices comes from the increase in meat consumption, particularly in Asia and increased use of ethanol fuel, you don't drive do you? If excess capacity was not kept in the past current food problems would be worse. Farmers now don't need to destroy crops, they can use that land now to grow crops because it is profitable.
True, I meant drink in the social sense as in "going out to drink with friends." Rarely when I go out do my friends choose a place based on the band, unless its one of our friends playing. Live music is about as important as the decorating, it will help with the atmosphere but most people won't go because of it.
Most of the people on slashdot are like that, but that's not a good representation of most of the population. Most intelligent will see downloading as a tool to make judgements on music; but the masses just see it as a way to get free music.
Again, what is the problem since indie music is legal to download if they choose to allow it. If you don't like the RIAA music, just don't consume. Don't buy, don't download, don't give them any reason to think there is a market.
That's great, if you want to go back to early 20th century living. Much of the 3rd world has primarily agrarian, that's not exactly the type of economy I would hope for.
What's the difference between an iPod and competitors? It's not the materials ("Less space than a nomad"), not the manufacture (everything is made in China), it's the IP - The software and the design.
I agree the Mark II & Mark VII Vipers are so much better than the originals
Yes that's the point, the food destroyed isn't causing starvation.
So that means you eat everything you buy, otherwise you are destroying food. Are you also a vegetarian, since meat based diets are far more inefficient and lead to higher grain prices.
The people who make music free already make it now, the only market change is for profit music will be significantly reduced, so overall the amount of music will decrease.
What music gets downloaded? People will go to bars to drink, and will choose the ones with the best entertainment, they do not necessarily go strictly for the entertainment.
They produce stuff that isn't listenable, yet it's the stuff that gets downloaded, a bit of a conflict.
Food is not something to build an economy on, it's a means to support your society. Manufactured goods continue to become commoditized like food. Modern technology is based on IP. The value of technology is increasingly design, the manufacture is cheap. Labor is increasingly being replaced by automation, so long term you can't support an economy with manufacturing. Creating designs and other IP then leveraging cheap manufacturing to accomplish it is the direction the economy is heading.
There are many items to do exactly the same thing, it's the design aspect that is important. Creativity is what gives value to products these days.
Just a few changes to the bits you are sending to the bank changes will cause a real change in money. It isn't just counting money, it is telling the various machines how to behave. Just as on a CD the bits themselves are useless to the listener other than they tell the speakers how to behave.
You do realize the reason most people are starving is because of transport of food. Look at Somalia where food is controlled by warlords, or Myanamar where food is sent but the government won't let it in.
Further, maintaining the viability of farmers to have excess land is a buffer to prevent future starvation. Regular market forces would mean supply will meet demand and some farmers would go out of business, should natural disaster strike and supply drops the market can't regulate itself fast enough. Food production unlike other goods & services is a slow business. The purpose of having farmers destroy crops is to maintain inventories not to get rich.
There will be music, just less of it, and especially less music that people want to listen to. People don't listen to indie music even though it's free, they'd rather spend money and listen to the music pumped out by the labels.
Again the cost to record music is cheap, the cost to find the talent and market bands that people want to listen to is still expensive.
Your example is passable for a "B" movie, so I guess the industry should abandon that niche which typically was done on low budget. While the special effects are excellent, the live action cinematography is lacking. As for acting & writing it's hard to tell from a trailer. Most amateur movies I've seen online have brilliance in writing, acting, or special effects, but rarely all three, and the live action filming and music are almost always lacking.
So yes it's much cheaper to put together a good movie, but to put together a great one is expensive.
Base our economy on what instead? Production of goods is not the way to go as automation continues to expand. The world is moving to more IP centric models, the value of an iPod is not the manufacture but the design, software is where much more valuable than hardware.
Yes it is, the fact that two intelligent people can have a disagreement over what constitutes "reasonable" demonstrates that it is a vague standard to which arbitrary limits can be assigned. The three branches of government have consistently upheld international border searches are reasonable.
I guess this is where we disagree. You state there is a single criteria - a reasonable search is one for which a warrant is issued; but the longstanding interpretation is that there are two criteria - 1) a reasonable search and 2) any search which is unreasonable requires a warrant to make it valid.
By your interpretation there would be no possibility to have reasonable searches based on "reasonable suspicion" or "no reasonable expecation of privacy." While the second interpretation allows the search of bags and personal effects, while keeping intact protections against unreasonable searches like x-rays, or strip searches.
What other reason would the word "reasonable" be included in the 4th Amendment unless the writers belived that there would be instances where a search is expected so there is no need to have a warrant. "Reasonable" refers to the type of search in relation to the circumstances - like the 8th amendment "cruel & unusual" does not necessesarily address the punishment but how the punishment fits the circumstances. Given the "longstanding traditions" the types of searches done at the border are reasonable, while elsewhere they would be considered unreasonable.
The point of IP is that by giving limited protections you foster risk taking. Look at the difference in what is produced by government sponsored art, and art developed by the market.
The Court's ruling is based on the longstanding traditions of nations securing their borders that go beyond the existence of the US.
It's gotten worse with the second gen Shuffles
It all comes down to the definition of unreasonable.
Dude that's the whole point of the story! In Web 2.0 you don't even need a link so IBM is replacing servers with sideways water cooled racks, no electronics needed... think of the profit margins!
Once technology matures to a similar point, then I'm all for sending people to Mars.
The problem is the way such things are handled, with a political motive, we're more likely to have point solutions than real sustainable one. So then in the long run we end up having to reinvent the wheel (albeit with some previous learnings), because the original solution is not applicable for widespread use.
I doubt a Mars mission will have nearly the same cultural effect as the moon landing. Instead of showing kids a great achievement, spend only a fraction of the $80B it will cost to go to Mars and make them part of one. Sponsor student projects that actually would get launched into space, fund scholarships for space tourism trips.
My point is why spend so many resources to hurry up and wait (40 years later we still haven't returned to the moon), when those resources could more efficiently be used with a steady path of advancement. We'd get a lot more mileage enabling private sector space travel, and travel to the moon a regular basis, than a single sexy mission to Mars.
I agree space exploration leads to a lot of scientific advancement, but many of the "big" problems need to be solved whether you're putting an unmanned lander on the moon or a person.
How much real science gets done on a manned mission than an unmanned one.
Space races are all fine and dandy for countries to show off, but don't confuse such events with real scientific advancement.
Ground stations no longer receiving signals because Earth was destroyed by a meteorite
That would really suck
Tang, Tempurpedic Pillows, Astronaut Ice Cream...
Does that mean if the lander crashes nerds everywhere will take to the streets and riot against that damn referee called physics.
I'd assume even if it bounced off it probably wouldn't have the momentum to escape Mars' gravity completely, so it would still land... just later than planned.
The idea is that they were poor, but gave everything they have for their religion... so wealthy people, why not give your money and live humble lives like the great prophets.
It's a way to market religion for fundraising from the rich, while giving the poor the sense they are closer to God than the wealthy. Same reason money is treated as "evil" yet relgions happily enjoy great extravagancies.