There are no guarantees that any investment will pay off, especially in short terms... or even in long terms...
If you define gambling as any act where there is no guarantee for payoff, then all of life is a gamble. If instead you look at investing & gambling as part of a risk spectrum you'd be closer to conventional definition. Most people don't think going to college is gambling with tens of thousands of dollars, even though there is no guarantee that it will "pay off."
So you'd rather the government trample upon your rights until at some point in their infinite wisdom the lawmakers, the same ones whose power the Constitution is designed to restrain, get around to adding hundreds of amendments to cover every angle. Just imagine an expanded 4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, phone calls, telegraphs, blue tooth, wifi, cell phone, portable audio device, portable digital storage device, phonebooth, personal transportation, medical records, law records, financial records, etc." Oh and for each new technology you'd need to go through the oh-so-quick process of amending the Constitution.
Copyright seeks to protect the materials after they have been published and disseminated to the public
Many privacy laws seek to protect public information. For example religion can be kept private from certain entitites, while it is something that is practiced publicly.
Copyright does not and cannot influence information that is not shared publicly for profit or for free.
Privacy law has expanded to cover information shared to others. For example laws regarding my medical records give protections that extend beyond my doctor to anybody else who might as a matter of business come in contact with them. Same applies to certain financial records that I share as a matter of business when making large purchases.
In other words, privacy is an opposite of copyright because no one seeks to share their private secrets while copyright would be meaningless in the absence of publication and dissemination.
Just as I want to share certain private information yet have it protected, copyright holders seek the same thing. It all comes down to being protected in how the information is used after it is shared with interested parties. Thats why privacy laws aren't just about keeping your information secret, it's about making sure others don't disseminate the information; same as copyright is about making sure others don't share the information they acquire through purchase, license, etc.
Can anyone still have any confusion about the difference between copyright and privacy?
One applies to me, the other applies to somebody else.
Live sets on radio, performances in clubs,etc could be the replacement for the sale of music.
Why can't performances be free? Why is PRM (Physical Rights Management) enforced by a bouncer any different than DRM? When you perform you are broadcasting, if there is an open seat why should I be kept out because I don't pay what you demand?
Why can't novel situations produce a novel body of laws based on consideration of the actual harm actually caused by those novel situations per se, rather than a derivative body of laws based on some poorly-conceived and thoroughly inaccurate analogy?
Because laws do not exist in a vacuum, they must coexist with the current body of laws. Not deriving law based on the past is as bad as all those patents granted by adding "on the internet" to something that already exists.
When I "steal" you bandwith, what is literally happening is that my device is making a request to your device. Your device, configured by you, activated by you, either approves or denies my request. If it approves my request, there is literally no theft--I have your written permission, recorded in the configuration of your device, to use your bandwidth. And if it denies my request, there is literally no theft, because I cannot use your bandwidth. That's the way the protocol is written, that's the way the protocol is enforced. It's literally that simple and straightforward. No need for analogies. The thing is completely understandable in terms of itself.
So I assume you believe the Constitution does not protect against wiretaps? You are freely broadcasting information to one or more networks, owned by somebody else who has the power to tap in, and the 4th Amendment mentions nothing about being secure on the phone or internet.
The President serves as an arbiter of Constitutionality by vetoing the bill, not by rejecting the "execution" of it
It is arguable that the president has the power to reject execution: "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," so he can choose to be faithful to the Constitution by rejecting "execution" of unconstitutional laws. Further, the power of pardon places such power to reject the opinions of Congress (law makers) and the Judicial Branch (interpreters of law).
Or do like they've always done and let the Court strike down the law based upon Constitutional arguments.
Which again was a power grab - One could argue that since the power to strike down law was not explicitly given to the Judicial Branch that under the 10th amendment it falls to the states.
Marbury v Madison was a political power play and ultimately it was the Judicial Branch that seized the power.
Because only religion deals in absolute, irrefutable "facts".
Science deals with facts... but unlike philosophy and religion it does not deal with truths. It is a fact that X was observed... now what that observation means gets into the realm of theory.
I have young kids, and I don't want them getting crushed when they knock this thing over (as they almost certainly will). In addition, a lamp that requires 50lbs. of anything doesn't sound green on the construction side.
Use your young kids as the weight, keep them from knocking it over, and no need to spend carbon shipping 50lbs.
And what effect, exactly, do you suppose ruling that a law is in violation of the constitution does? Perhaps make the law ineffective, null, unenforceable,.. striked down?
That is where the Constitution is not clear, and how Marshall made a power grab.
If a law says "you must do this" and a senator doesn't do it then the judicial branch *can* be used to slap them around for BREAKING THE LAW.
No, the courts do not have the power to remove somebody from the structure of government. Impeachment falls towards the people, the states, and the legislature, which can render decision based on the legal opinion of the judicial branch.
Selective enforcement does not give anyone the power to interpret the law. It only gives them the power to ignore it at their own peril.
Which places them in some respect above the law - for example presidential pardons.
They can throw a senator in jail if given a good enough reason to do so within law.
But they cannot remove him from office.
Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with the power of Judicial Review, but it is an implied power that goes beyond that specifically outlined in the Constitution - Just like the ability of the president to start combative actions without a formal declaration of War by Congress, the establishment of Federal Reserve, and a laundry list of other powers not enumerated.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
What I meant is that as arbitor there is nothing in there about remedy. So the judicial branch can rule that a law is in violation of Constitution, but does not have the explicit right to strike it down.
Or more to the point, what do you think should happen when a case comes before the Supreme Court, and a law passed by Congress is in conflict with the Constitution?
I'm not saying I'm against Judicial review, but there are alternatives. As I mentioned the Executive branch can decide to not execute, or Congress can decide to take the opinion of the court and change the law.
As to your "devil's advocate" question: Because the Judicial power isn't granted to the President. The Executive branch can in fact decline to enforce a law, this is what the DoJ does all the time by choosing who to prosecute and who not to. But that decision does not in any way constitute a legal decision, because matters of law are decided by a Judge. And if a certain law requires action of the Executive branch, then in a case brought before the courts, the Judicial branch has the power to render judgement against them and a proscribe appropriate penalties.
Executive Orders have been used to manage the execution part of law... and the Judicial branch has no power to penalize, that falls upon the legislative branch.
Oh and by the way, the statute which the Court ruled in Marbury v Madison to be Unconstitutional was one which increased the Court's power. It's kind of hard to call this a power grab when the executed their Constitutional power to judge a case under the law in order to reject an Unconstitutional increase in power.
Like most other power grabs, it was done in an covert manner. By rejecting the law, the Court appointed itself ultimate arbitor of Constitutionality which is not an expressly enumerated power. It's just like the Interstate Commerce Clause and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," powergrabs by the legislative & executive branches, not specifically stated but arguably in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.
In other words this is a case of the Judicial Branch abusing their powers by under-utilizing them, resulting in an increase in power of the other two branches.
No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?
I think the problem here on/. is that people are focused on the science and asking the wrong questions. Fact: global temperature is rising. Implication: Enough people around the world think it's man-made to cause international political fallout
Now what's important is managing perception in an economicly stable manner. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years some 3rd world country sues the US because they got hit by massive flooding, and are then legally allowed to distribute US intellectual property. It doesn't matter what the actual science is, and educating children in the US will have 0 impact - it will come down to the politics and international perception.
So instead of "we'll save the climate using swirly lightbulbs," it's more along the lines of "we're improving our political and security situatuation by using swirly lightbulbs."
If, as you seem to be suggesting, we give up trying to teach proper scientific ideas to the general public, then we risk evolving into an anti-rational society, in which there is no fact, only opinion, and in which people form their opinions on important scientific issues based their own preconceived political/ideological assumptions, and not on actual observation of the physical world.
Yes we should educate children about science, the problem is many things in society can not be boiled down to science. It's much more important to teach children about how to intelligently discuss the social and political reprocussions of science, than involve them in the scientific debate itself. You don't have to understand the specifics of DNA research to appreciate the possible impact on society, just as you don't need to understand the science behind climate change, to appreciate the impact on society.
The reason why so many people are so credulous, so ready to gobble the propaganda of the various interest groups is BECAUSE they have no idea of the actual science. When the population does not understand the science, then they are malleable to anyone who cares to manipulate them. It is only when science is widely known that people make proper decisions as to the best directions to lead society..
The problem is even if you do understand all the basic science, how they translate into a complex system such as the Earth's weather patterns is far too complex. So you end up in a situation where people "think" they know what's going on, and are still susceptable to propaganda influence. With all the scientific information out there, look at how much people "understand" about their diet.
Your seeming acquiescence to widespread scientific ignorance does not bode well for American democracy. If the public is ignorant of most important issues affecting society, then democracy is a hollow shell, and voting is mostly meaningless.
Your seeming dismisal of the opinions of those who are not experts is intellectual elitism. Are you not allowed to have an opinion on the war in Iraq unless you've studied international politics and researched the long term economic impact of a westernized Iraq. Of course not, I can be against the war because it is the "wrong thing." That said, I don't advocate ignorace, what I do advocate is intelligently discussing questions in a way that non-experts can participate. Besically, do an end around the right wing induced controversy, and just discuss the current implications. The fact the most of the world believes in global warming essentially makes the "truth" a moot point and start the discussion from there. Shouldn't the US participate in international environmental law, not because it will effect the environment, but rather to remain in a favorable political situation. Shouldn't alternative energy be sought not because of the envirionment, but rather as part of national security and long term economics.
Instead of falling into the intellectual trap of arguing all the little nuances, leave that to the experts, and discuss what really matters to the individual.
If we believe our children are stupid and incapable of learning advanced topics, then they will fulfill our prophecy for us.
Capable does not equal willing. Looking at everything you propose, I would counter with "who cares," most people can go through their entire life without such knowledge and be contributing members of society. More important than the actual science, is an open discussion of the social and economic ramifications of any climate change. That is what has far more impact and applicability to the average person. Climate change is an inevitable, skip the whole political egg shell walking around the right wingers about whether it is manmade or not, and just discuss what happens when there is change. Discuss things like political fallout when a country suffers flooding, food shortages and examine the economics of "green." Politics and sociology are more interesting to most, and more applicable to daily life than the scientific aspects
When a big company like Best Buy creates a problem, the best way to get that problem corrected is to make them feel the pinch. If their half-cocked "remedies" and attempts to keep the problem quiet can be chalked up to the "cost of doing business," then they will never change their practices.
At the same time the system shouldn't reward the victim. A lost laptop shouldn't be the equivalent of winning the lotto. Of course compensatory damages should be awarded to the victim, however, the punitive damages should be awarded to the government. This keeps with the philosophy that punitive damages are awarded to protect the public (represented by the government), while punishing the offender. This also will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, since instead of the possibly winning millions, the plaintiff will at most get "fairly" compensated.
To keep people such as Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc... in power they need wars.
... Washington, Lincoln. War can be used for positive social change. Sometimes the only way to get out of the grasp of tyranny is through war. The most successful non-violent approaches to political change worked because in the background there were those committing violence.
As an astrophysicist I see exactly the opposite: funding is going to answering unknown questions like "What is dark matter?" and "What is dark energy?", not to mention the multibillion-dollar colliders like LHC, one the main goals of which is to figure out how and at what energy the Standard Model of particle physics breaks down. This is exactly the opposite of "defending the status quo."
No, it is defending the status quo, or rather the generally accepted but not proven. How much money is going into alternative theories to dark energy, or dark matter? Generally if your model does not comply with what is accepted you won't get funding.
Think you have things mixed up Teachers would say: "Pi is about 22/7." "Engineers would state "Pi is 3.14159 plus or minus 0.000005." Physicists just use the symbol.
The biggest difference between solid state physics (science) and properties of materials (engineering) - was in the engineering class you could hand wave away parts of the integration by saying it goes to 0 and have neat easy to solve equations, Physics left everything intact and was a far more painful in terms of math.
Problem 1 is define what an offense is. Manufacturing processes can have all sorts of issues and can range from minor - the sorting machine jammed and some pills are broken when shipped to major - this pill is actually poison. Problem 2 is that by revoking patents you essentially turn the industry into low cost generic manufacturers, which are the ones who will more willingly cut corners to save cost.
Slashdot Mirror
If instead you look at investing & gambling as part of a risk spectrum you'd be closer to conventional definition. Most people don't think going to college is gambling with tens of thousands of dollars, even though there is no guarantee that it will "pay off."
So you'd rather the government trample upon your rights until at some point in their infinite wisdom the lawmakers, the same ones whose power the Constitution is designed to restrain, get around to adding hundreds of amendments to cover every angle.
Just imagine an expanded 4th amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, phone calls, telegraphs, blue tooth, wifi, cell phone, portable audio device, portable digital storage device, phonebooth, personal transportation, medical records, law records, financial records, etc."
Oh and for each new technology you'd need to go through the oh-so-quick process of amending the Constitution.
Privacy law has expanded to cover information shared to others. For example laws regarding my medical records give protections that extend beyond my doctor to anybody else who might as a matter of business come in contact with them. Same applies to certain financial records that I share as a matter of business when making large purchases.
Just as I want to share certain private information yet have it protected, copyright holders seek the same thing. It all comes down to being protected in how the information is used after it is shared with interested parties. Thats why privacy laws aren't just about keeping your information secret, it's about making sure others don't disseminate the information; same as copyright is about making sure others don't share the information they acquire through purchase, license, etc.
One applies to me, the other applies to somebody else.
Why can't performances be free? Why is PRM (Physical Rights Management) enforced by a bouncer any different than DRM? When you perform you are broadcasting, if there is an open seat why should I be kept out because I don't pay what you demand?
So I assume you believe the Constitution does not protect against wiretaps? You are freely broadcasting information to one or more networks, owned by somebody else who has the power to tap in, and the 4th Amendment mentions nothing about being secure on the phone or internet.
Which again was a power grab - One could argue that since the power to strike down law was not explicitly given to the Judicial Branch that under the 10th amendment it falls to the states.
Marbury v Madison was a political power play and ultimately it was the Judicial Branch that seized the power.
It is a fact that X was observed... now what that observation means gets into the realm of theory.
No, the courts do not have the power to remove somebody from the structure of government. Impeachment falls towards the people, the states, and the legislature, which can render decision based on the legal opinion of the judicial branch.
Which places them in some respect above the law - for example presidential pardons.
But they cannot remove him from office.
Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with the power of Judicial Review, but it is an implied power that goes beyond that specifically outlined in the Constitution - Just like the ability of the president to start combative actions without a formal declaration of War by Congress, the establishment of Federal Reserve, and a laundry list of other powers not enumerated.
I'm not saying I'm against Judicial review, but there are alternatives. As I mentioned the Executive branch can decide to not execute, or Congress can decide to take the opinion of the court and change the law.
Executive Orders have been used to manage the execution part of law... and the Judicial branch has no power to penalize, that falls upon the legislative branch.
No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"
I think the problem here on /. is that people are focused on the science and asking the wrong questions.
Fact: global temperature is rising.
Implication: Enough people around the world think it's man-made to cause international political fallout
Now what's important is managing perception in an economicly stable manner. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years some 3rd world country sues the US because they got hit by massive flooding, and are then legally allowed to distribute US intellectual property. It doesn't matter what the actual science is, and educating children in the US will have 0 impact - it will come down to the politics and international perception.
So instead of "we'll save the climate using swirly lightbulbs," it's more along the lines of "we're improving our political and security situatuation by using swirly lightbulbs."
Your seeming dismisal of the opinions of those who are not experts is intellectual elitism. Are you not allowed to have an opinion on the war in Iraq unless you've studied international politics and researched the long term economic impact of a westernized Iraq. Of course not, I can be against the war because it is the "wrong thing."
That said, I don't advocate ignorace, what I do advocate is intelligently discussing questions in a way that non-experts can participate. Besically, do an end around the right wing induced controversy, and just discuss the current implications. The fact the most of the world believes in global warming essentially makes the "truth" a moot point and start the discussion from there. Shouldn't the US participate in international environmental law, not because it will effect the environment, but rather to remain in a favorable political situation. Shouldn't alternative energy be sought not because of the envirionment, but rather as part of national security and long term economics.
Instead of falling into the intellectual trap of arguing all the little nuances, leave that to the experts, and discuss what really matters to the individual.
More important than the actual science, is an open discussion of the social and economic ramifications of any climate change. That is what has far more impact and applicability to the average person. Climate change is an inevitable, skip the whole political egg shell walking around the right wingers about whether it is manmade or not, and just discuss what happens when there is change. Discuss things like political fallout when a country suffers flooding, food shortages and examine the economics of "green."
Politics and sociology are more interesting to most, and more applicable to daily life than the scientific aspects
Of course compensatory damages should be awarded to the victim, however, the punitive damages should be awarded to the government.
This keeps with the philosophy that punitive damages are awarded to protect the public (represented by the government), while punishing the offender.
This also will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, since instead of the possibly winning millions, the plaintiff will at most get "fairly" compensated.
Generally if your model does not comply with what is accepted you won't get funding.
Think you have things mixed up
Teachers would say: "Pi is about 22/7."
"Engineers would state "Pi is 3.14159 plus or minus 0.000005."
Physicists just use the symbol.
The biggest difference between solid state physics (science) and properties of materials (engineering) - was in the engineering class you could hand wave away parts of the integration by saying it goes to 0 and have neat easy to solve equations, Physics left everything intact and was a far more painful in terms of math.
Problem 1 is define what an offense is. Manufacturing processes can have all sorts of issues and can range from minor - the sorting machine jammed and some pills are broken when shipped to major - this pill is actually poison.
Problem 2 is that by revoking patents you essentially turn the industry into low cost generic manufacturers, which are the ones who will more willingly cut corners to save cost.