I bookmarked this discussion yesterday to come back to it. I haven't read it all, but the NYTimes article is soundly reasoned but seems to ignore it's own points and come to a different conclusion. I post this in the hopes of getting some well-reasoned replies.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.
Totally fine. So what does that mean when the tax base is shrinking? It A The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
But this isn't post WW2. We didn't just win a war. If we want to try to compare the situations, it is more like we are losing one. But this is an economic war. After WW2 the US was a technological superpower, the victor, and mostly unscathed. The rest of the world needed to be rebuilt. There will be no magical stimulus from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
The line of reasoning that the economy will just grow forever is exactly the thinking that got us into our current crisis. Banks gave out subprime mortgages under the economic theory that housing prices never go down. Ooops! Now we are fooling ourselves into thinking that economies never shrink, so debts are irrelevant. Oops!
And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt.
Raising taxes doesn't work well when you have a shrinking tax base and high unemployment.
Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years
I found a graph of this recently. The biggest debt-to-GDP ratios were before the industrial revolution, and during the wars. So it isn't a valid comparison.
Most of the article is good, and clarifies a lot of points. But don't read it and conclude that debts don't matter. Tell that to Europe.
Define "a done deal?" As of now, his signature has no force of law. Obama can sign anything he wants: credit card receipts, autographs, or his underwear. There's nothing magical about his signature unless it is on a piece of legislation approved by the legislature. Maybe he just did it for the lolz.
What court would uphold something that the senate never voted upon? Who would arrest someone for violating an international treaty that was never ratified? Has that ever happened?
Have the US courts ever enforced a treaty that was not signed by the Senate? That would be like enforcing a law that was not signed or voted upon. I think that would be real armed uprising material there.
No it is not. A simple Google search for "left turn intersection" will show you this in the first few hits. A few of the top hits are the actual code in states like Indiana and Texas where you can see this is the case. The other links are forum discussions on this because it is such a common misunderstanding.
As for intersections on yellow/red lights. Tickets for people who entered an intersection on yellow and then the light turned red are almost always upheld in the end (when the police officer bothers to show up).
That is not true, because it is not illegal. See aforementioned links.
Why would anyone want him to submit it to the Senate? So long as he does not do this, the signature is meaningless. It seems to me that everyone signing that petition is asking for it to be ratified.
Your examples are cases where you don't understand the law - not where it is inconsistent. Let me explain:
Consider a left turn at a light where there isn't a separate left turn signal. If the traffic coming in the other direction is continuous, they have the right of way and you can't turn left unless you move to the middle of the intersection, wait for the light to change, then turn. This is illegal
No it is not. This is actually the correct thing to do, and my driving instructor practiced it with me several times.
Which means that there are many intersections where, even if the light changes to yellow _after_ you've crossed the stop line, you can't make it all the way across before the red light unless you're speeding.
It is legal to enter the intersection on the green/yellow and then exit after the red has changed. The law states that all other drivers must yield to the vehicle in the intersection. So you have the right of way, even after the light turns red. To make this clearer: Suppose you pull into the intersection during the yellow, and the light turns red for you and green for someone else. If that someone else pulls into the intersection the police will pull *them* over not you. If they hit you, they are at fault.
I hope this makes turning less stressful for you. If you don't believe me, read the other discussion on left turn laws on Slashdot.:-) Look for "Are yellows in Denver really short?" by AdrianKemp, and the resulting replies.
Actually, DVI-D does have the audio. There are no additional pins required for it. I have a TV with a DVI interface and I was surprised when I found that it was playing audio from my HTPC over the DVI connection.
I hope that is a key question in the trial. In short, I think the answer is that the DOJ and the courts made up their own rules and the only good provision in the DMCA is selectively ignored.
I suspect that the case will mention that MegaUpload has ads, which means it profits from pirate downloads. This argument was made in cases against other file sharing sites. The argument should fail as irrelevant, but in the past it has not. Many things profit indirectly from piracy, but that is not enough of a reason to deny them safe harbor. But the DMCA is poorly worded and even more poorly interpreted so that the DOJ and the courts can shut down whoever they want.
Youtube profits from piracy (ads). So does Google, and taxicabs, and restaurants.
In reality, I suspect that anyone who actively polices their content for piracy, or signs deals with the MPAA/RIAA, will not be prosecuted. While pure file sharing companies will be. In theory, it should not matter if they actively police their files or not since the DMCA does not require them to do so in order to keep safe harbor.
What if we had government gamification instead of taxes? Instead of taxing cigarettes, let's have an achievement for not smoking. Or achievements for eating healthy foods. Achievements would earn you points toward social security. Companies could offer achievements toward pensions and retirement. Maybe instead of a military, we could have achievements for killing enemy soldiers. Oooh, I see the makings of a dystopian novel coming on!
I'm glad you are quoting the constitution, but you are completely misunderstanding it. The clause you are referring to was specifically meant to grant the power to make copyright law. You are trying to interpret the constitution in a way that suits your needs, without the appropriate historical context. Let me explain:
The clause states:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Based on the language of the constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, and the historical basis in the common law system, the constitution is specifically granting congress the power to make copyright law. One of the reasons the writers of the constitution did this was because the Articles of Confederation did not grant the government this power, which means each state had it's own copyright law. This was annoying for obvious reasons. And in case there is still any thought that it was not intended: James Madison, fourth president, "Father of the constitution" was the one who signed the first copyright law into effect.
It looks like you completely misread the MrHanky's post. He isn't advocating DRM, he is arguing that copyright is necessary because if you remove copyright, authors must resort to complex ways to prevent or limit copying. You seem to argue in favor of copyright over DRM, which is exactly his point.
Your problem is that you think any creator of a work deserves to be paid under all circumstances. Not so
No one here said that.
Unless the work is of good quality, the creator does not deserve anything.
True. You seem to be arguing against a system that forces people to pay for things they did not buy. I am unclear where this came from.
If by "self-documenting code" you mean code with milti-paragraph long comments
That is not what the term "self-documenting code" means. It actually means the opposite of that. The term refers to code with no comments, where the variable names, function names, etc. are so well-named that comments are less necessary. For example:
float CalcPatients() {// Calculate an estimate of the number of patients based on // the number of beds per room, // the number of rooms, and the average occupancy rate. Since // this uses an average // occupancy rate, it is just a guess rather than an actual number. // So you might get fractional patients.
return bpr * r * o; }
float EstimateNumberOfPatients() {
int beds = bedsPerRoom * rooms;
int patients = beds * occupancyRate;
return patients; }
Also, all modern browsers will only send a cookie to the same domain that set the cookie
That is how they used to operate, and that is how they are supposed to operate. But enabling 3rd-party cookies means that this rule is disabled. And that is now the default in most browsers. I am trying to figure out when and why this changed.
At what point did we accept that companies have to sanction their software to run on each and every different device?
Comcast, for example, announced that it's going to allow OnDemand streaming not only to Samsung Smart TV's but also to the iPad.
Imagine if you read the following statement:
Microsoft, for example, announced that it's going to allow Microsoft Office to run not only on Toshiba Laptops but also on the Sony Vaio
Or perhaps
Google, for example, announced that it's going to allow Google Search to run not only on Chrome, but also on Internet Explorer
Or perhaps closer:
AT&T, for example, announced that it's going to allow voice conversations to run not only on Panasonic phones, but also the Uniden DECT phone.
Those would be preposterous. Yet because media companies are basically monopolies, they decide who can use what services on what devices. And we accept this. We cheer when they allow yet another device to connect to their services. We need to break up these media conglomerates, disconnect the phone monopolies from the handset manufacturers, and get the DOJ and the FAA to stop allowing mergers like Comcast - NBC that just make the problem worse.
3rd-party cookies are a contributing factor to some of these privacy violations.
At what point did it become standard for browsers to accept 3rd-party cookies? The original cookie spec explicitly forbid them, and only reason that I know of to support them is to allow sites to track you across other domains. No web application, shopping cart, etc. should ever need to use them. Further, they seem like a terrible security flaw.
I was surprised to find that Firefox enables this by default, and some web forums (Engadget) are even complaining if you turn them off. I think we need to nip this in the bug, but I am curious when and why this default changed.
I heard someone from the UK telling me the same thing. But like you, no references. Other than diesel technology, I'm not aware of any engine tech that can be obtained in Europe that is not available in the US. Do you have any examples or references for your statement?
This is not true with *all* brain teasers. Some of them are classic math problems in disguise. The problem is that most interviewers don't know the difference.
This is why the citizens of the world need to make sure that monopolies and governments don't control the internet. We need to require network neutrality and stop laws like SOPA. We don't need the government to provide everyone with internet access: we just need to be sure that no one can prevent us from getting it. That is what a right is about: making sure that no government can abridge it.
That's what I thought until I started searching around. Apparently some of them specifically protect first responders, people trained in CPR, etc. but specifically forbid bystanders from interfering. (Wikipedia is a good starting point.)
Medical professionals have a duty and standard of care and if they do not meet it, they are liable.
Perhaps, but they aren't liable for assault, which is what the parent was saying. Check this out: According to Florida state standards of care: "Resuscitation may be withheld or withdrawn from a patient..." so the DNR does not *forbid* them from resucitating, it just gives them the legal option. That is probably because they may be responding to an emergency and don't have time to look at paperwork (although I would think it would be a big sign right there, duh.)
Slashdot Mirror
I bookmarked this discussion yesterday to come back to it. I haven't read it all, but the NYTimes article is soundly reasoned but seems to ignore it's own points and come to a different conclusion. I post this in the hopes of getting some well-reasoned replies.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.
Totally fine. So what does that mean when the tax base is shrinking? It A The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
But this isn't post WW2. We didn't just win a war. If we want to try to compare the situations, it is more like we are losing one. But this is an economic war. After WW2 the US was a technological superpower, the victor, and mostly unscathed. The rest of the world needed to be rebuilt. There will be no magical stimulus from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
The line of reasoning that the economy will just grow forever is exactly the thinking that got us into our current crisis. Banks gave out subprime mortgages under the economic theory that housing prices never go down. Ooops! Now we are fooling ourselves into thinking that economies never shrink, so debts are irrelevant. Oops!
And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt.
Raising taxes doesn't work well when you have a shrinking tax base and high unemployment.
Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years
I found a graph of this recently. The biggest debt-to-GDP ratios were before the industrial revolution, and during the wars. So it isn't a valid comparison.
Most of the article is good, and clarifies a lot of points. But don't read it and conclude that debts don't matter. Tell that to Europe.
Define "a done deal?" As of now, his signature has no force of law. Obama can sign anything he wants: credit card receipts, autographs, or his underwear. There's nothing magical about his signature unless it is on a piece of legislation approved by the legislature. Maybe he just did it for the lolz.
What court would uphold something that the senate never voted upon? Who would arrest someone for violating an international treaty that was never ratified? Has that ever happened?
Have the US courts ever enforced a treaty that was not signed by the Senate? That would be like enforcing a law that was not signed or voted upon. I think that would be real armed uprising material there.
It's also technically illegal most of the time.
No it is not. A simple Google search for "left turn intersection" will show you this in the first few hits. A few of the top hits are the actual code in states like Indiana and Texas where you can see this is the case. The other links are forum discussions on this because it is such a common misunderstanding.
As for intersections on yellow/red lights. Tickets for people who entered an intersection on yellow and then the light turned red are almost always upheld in the end (when the police officer bothers to show up).
That is not true, because it is not illegal. See aforementioned links.
Why would anyone want him to submit it to the Senate? So long as he does not do this, the signature is meaningless. It seems to me that everyone signing that petition is asking for it to be ratified.
Your examples are cases where you don't understand the law - not where it is inconsistent. Let me explain:
Consider a left turn at a light where there isn't a separate left turn signal. If the traffic coming in the other direction is continuous, they have the right of way and you can't turn left unless you move to the middle of the intersection, wait for the light to change, then turn. This is illegal
No it is not. This is actually the correct thing to do, and my driving instructor practiced it with me several times.
Which means that there are many intersections where, even if the light changes to yellow _after_ you've crossed the stop line, you can't make it all the way across before the red light unless you're speeding.
It is legal to enter the intersection on the green/yellow and then exit after the red has changed. The law states that all other drivers must yield to the vehicle in the intersection. So you have the right of way, even after the light turns red. To make this clearer: Suppose you pull into the intersection during the yellow, and the light turns red for you and green for someone else. If that someone else pulls into the intersection the police will pull *them* over not you. If they hit you, they are at fault.
I hope this makes turning less stressful for you. If you don't believe me, read the other discussion on left turn laws on Slashdot. :-) Look for "Are yellows in Denver really short?" by AdrianKemp, and the resulting replies.
Actually, DVI-D does have the audio. There are no additional pins required for it. I have a TV with a DVI interface and I was surprised when I found that it was playing audio from my HTPC over the DVI connection.
I can see a crime being involved
What crime would that be?
I hope that is a key question in the trial. In short, I think the answer is that the DOJ and the courts made up their own rules and the only good provision in the DMCA is selectively ignored.
I suspect that the case will mention that MegaUpload has ads, which means it profits from pirate downloads. This argument was made in cases against other file sharing sites. The argument should fail as irrelevant, but in the past it has not. Many things profit indirectly from piracy, but that is not enough of a reason to deny them safe harbor. But the DMCA is poorly worded and even more poorly interpreted so that the DOJ and the courts can shut down whoever they want.
Youtube profits from piracy (ads). So does Google, and taxicabs, and restaurants.
In reality, I suspect that anyone who actively polices their content for piracy, or signs deals with the MPAA/RIAA, will not be prosecuted. While pure file sharing companies will be. In theory, it should not matter if they actively police their files or not since the DMCA does not require them to do so in order to keep safe harbor.
But none of those things should affect the DMCA safe harbor requirements.
What if we had government gamification instead of taxes? Instead of taxing cigarettes, let's have an achievement for not smoking. Or achievements for eating healthy foods. Achievements would earn you points toward social security. Companies could offer achievements toward pensions and retirement. Maybe instead of a military, we could have achievements for killing enemy soldiers. Oooh, I see the makings of a dystopian novel coming on!
I'm glad you are quoting the constitution, but you are completely misunderstanding it. The clause you are referring to was specifically meant to grant the power to make copyright law. You are trying to interpret the constitution in a way that suits your needs, without the appropriate historical context. Let me explain:
The clause states:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Based on the language of the constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, and the historical basis in the common law system, the constitution is specifically granting congress the power to make copyright law. One of the reasons the writers of the constitution did this was because the Articles of Confederation did not grant the government this power, which means each state had it's own copyright law. This was annoying for obvious reasons. And in case there is still any thought that it was not intended: James Madison, fourth president, "Father of the constitution" was the one who signed the first copyright law into effect.
Try this link for a bit of background for some background.
It looks like you completely misread the MrHanky's post. He isn't advocating DRM, he is arguing that copyright is necessary because if you remove copyright, authors must resort to complex ways to prevent or limit copying. You seem to argue in favor of copyright over DRM, which is exactly his point.
Your problem is that you think any creator of a work deserves to be paid under all circumstances. Not so
No one here said that.
Unless the work is of good quality, the creator does not deserve anything.
True. You seem to be arguing against a system that forces people to pay for things they did not buy. I am unclear where this came from.
Is it a shortage of water, or an excess of humans?
That test requires weeks to months since TB grows so slowly.
If by "self-documenting code" you mean code with milti-paragraph long comments
That is not what the term "self-documenting code" means. It actually means the opposite of that. The term refers to code with no comments, where the variable names, function names, etc. are so well-named that comments are less necessary. For example:
float CalcPatients()
{
return bpr * r * o;
}
float EstimateNumberOfPatients()
{
int beds = bedsPerRoom * rooms;
int patients = beds * occupancyRate;
return patients;
}
The latter is the self-documenting version.
Also, all modern browsers will only send a cookie to the same domain that set the cookie
That is how they used to operate, and that is how they are supposed to operate. But enabling 3rd-party cookies means that this rule is disabled. And that is now the default in most browsers. I am trying to figure out when and why this changed.
At what point did we accept that companies have to sanction their software to run on each and every different device?
Comcast, for example, announced that it's going to allow OnDemand streaming not only to Samsung Smart TV's but also to the iPad.
Imagine if you read the following statement:
Microsoft, for example, announced that it's going to allow Microsoft Office to run not only on Toshiba Laptops but also on the Sony Vaio
Or perhaps
Google, for example, announced that it's going to allow Google Search to run not only on Chrome, but also on Internet Explorer
Or perhaps closer:
AT&T, for example, announced that it's going to allow voice conversations to run not only on Panasonic phones, but also the Uniden DECT phone.
Those would be preposterous. Yet because media companies are basically monopolies, they decide who can use what services on what devices. And we accept this. We cheer when they allow yet another device to connect to their services. We need to break up these media conglomerates, disconnect the phone monopolies from the handset manufacturers, and get the DOJ and the FAA to stop allowing mergers like Comcast - NBC that just make the problem worse.
3rd-party cookies are a contributing factor to some of these privacy violations.
At what point did it become standard for browsers to accept 3rd-party cookies? The original cookie spec explicitly forbid them, and only reason that I know of to support them is to allow sites to track you across other domains. No web application, shopping cart, etc. should ever need to use them. Further, they seem like a terrible security flaw.
I was surprised to find that Firefox enables this by default, and some web forums (Engadget) are even complaining if you turn them off. I think we need to nip this in the bug, but I am curious when and why this default changed.
I heard someone from the UK telling me the same thing. But like you, no references. Other than diesel technology, I'm not aware of any engine tech that can be obtained in Europe that is not available in the US. Do you have any examples or references for your statement?
This is not true with *all* brain teasers. Some of them are classic math problems in disguise. The problem is that most interviewers don't know the difference.
Precisely.
This is why the citizens of the world need to make sure that monopolies and governments don't control the internet. We need to require network neutrality and stop laws like SOPA. We don't need the government to provide everyone with internet access: we just need to be sure that no one can prevent us from getting it. That is what a right is about: making sure that no government can abridge it.
Thanks.
Good samaritan laws generally protect bystanders
That's what I thought until I started searching around. Apparently some of them specifically protect first responders, people trained in CPR, etc. but specifically forbid bystanders from interfering. (Wikipedia is a good starting point.)
Medical professionals have a duty and standard of care and if they do not meet it, they are liable.
Perhaps, but they aren't liable for assault, which is what the parent was saying. Check this out: According to Florida state standards of care: "Resuscitation may be withheld or withdrawn from a patient..." so the DNR does not *forbid* them from resucitating, it just gives them the legal option. That is probably because they may be responding to an emergency and don't have time to look at paperwork (although I would think it would be a big sign right there, duh.)
Can someone explain why GoDaddy would support SOPA in the first place?