From what I understand, the Patriot Act consists most of legislation that law enforcement agencies (notably the FBI) have been trying to pass for years. Bascially, they wanted the powers the lost after the excesses of the Vietnam era back again.
I don't know much about this personally, but a lawyer who is purportedly an expert on the act told me very little of it was drafted around the time it was introduced. The took all these old, failed bills, slapped them together with some language about terrorism, and rammed it through using some dirty tactics.
Not many copies were actually distributed before it was voted on, and it was only distrubuted less than a day before the vote. This is a gigantic legal document, so there was no possibility to know what was in it before the vote. Another lawyer i spoke with, from the ACLU, told me that the day after this passed they received calls from numerous congressman who wanted to know what the hell they'd just voted for.
Democracy in action!
I don't think you can make any respectable logical argument about the rights of animals. When people think of a particular organism being subjected to research, their moral judgement about the situatuion is likely to be based on how close a resemblence that organism bears to humans. As belief in the importance of the research varies (due both to individual differences and differences in the research itself), so will the threshold of how human-like a subject is acceptable.
Of course, some set their threshold at absolute minimum, saying that anything that we perceive as alive has rights that we infringe by subjecting it to research. When I meet one of these, I 1)immediately mention my lab works on yeast, and 2) ask if they like yogurt.
That is one interpretation of the appeal of video games (shooters in specific), but I think you are overlooking the common desire to escape from daily life, to "pass the time". Games which are more challenging engage more of your consciousness, and thus provide more escape.
For many, video games are and addiction. And, like all addictions, the dose administered must increase over time or it loses it's effect. This is why video games become progressively more complicated and extreme. They MUST, or else they will lose interest.
This is analagous to the escalation of exploitation on "reality" TV shows. Each show seems to be more degrading to it's participants than the last. How long before an analogue of gladiators appears?
But I digress...
Many of the news sites are owned by big conglomerates, true. However, there are plenty of alternatives, and if you are cynical and savvy, as the parent most likely is, you read a wide variety of sources, many which are not owned by conglomerates.
I agree.
Of course there is some inherent risk in foods modified using modern recombinant DNA technologies, but no more than with conventional breeding, in my opinion.
Many food producing species have been crossed with outside species (usually closely related, but not always). Crossing with outside species introduces a host of unknown factors, combining genes in a totally unique, unpredictable way. However, this was never a matter of heated public debate. Now if you want to add a single gene culled from some other organism, there is an outcry.
Seedless fruit varieties are generally the result of an uneven cross, where the offspring ends up with an uneven number of chromosome sets, and is thus sterile. These lineages are perpetuated by vegetative cloning (cutting).
Genetic manipulation of food producing plants has been around for some time. Now we have the technology to modify organisms in a more careful, precise way (although the outcomes are still unpredictable), but there is resistance. I think this stems mostly from sensationalist coverage of the new technology. Without the proper background information, people are shocked.
Of course this is a public health issue, and new food products should only be introduced to the public after careful testing. What irks me is the hyteria (not that the parent is hysteric).
I don't think anyone is worried about retailers using RFID tags to stremline their supply chain. What is worrisome is that the tags could end up in all the merchandise, and perhaps not be disabled when you purchase an RFID tagged item.
If RFID tags on the merchandise are disabled when you purchase the item, the only disadvantage is that Wal-mart (or whoever) could collect a lot more detailed information about people's shopping habits (and maybe correlate them with your personal info if you pay by credit card). Of course, that's only a disadvantage if you oppose extending the range of marketing efforts, as I do.
If the tags are not disabled when you purchase the item, there is a whole world of possibilites for how these things could be abused. What if you had a tag in your underpants (which you never change) that was eternally active? I think you can imagine the possibilities.
I agree, and I feel tortured after having the rare chance of posting a comment that would actually be read dangled before me then cruelly torn away.
I'm beside myself with grief. I better call in sick. From class.
But "in the right" according to what? You make it sound so clear cut, but it certainly is not. Many who pirate software, say from M$, may feel that they are doing the world good by depriving M$ of a little revenue.
Is it inherently "right" to protect the interests of hugely wealthy people/corporations , thereby assuring they can amass more wealth at the cost of others whose standard of living is plummeting?
I'm not saying that it is always right to steal from the hugely wealthy, but just providing an example to show that morals are extremely hazy and have to be taken purely on a case by case basis. If by "in the right" you are referring to legality, we might as well stop debating. I see law as an attempt to formalize morality, which is not a formal system as far as I can see.
just my two cents as well, all in the name of productive debate.
I certainly agree that debunking the claims of the RIAA and MPAA are not the main point here. We need to consider the merit of IP rights, and look at how to balance them with personal property.
I do not see how the money question is simply a distraction. As you brought up yourself, one of the important functions of IP law is to retain incentive for innovation, and that incentive is often monetary. So the question you call "distraction" is quite pertinent to one of your "larger questions." As I noted above, there are certainly higher level issues to be dealt with here, but the money issue is clearly not irrelevant.
Also, I reject the concert hall analogy on the grounds that a concert hall is clearly not a private space for those attending. Kicking out people who sneak into a show is hardly invasive. Tracking your downloading habits is quite a different issue. That's much more complicated, so I'd rather not go into it here, but I hope you can see the difference.
Did you notice the Harvard study released a few weeks ago by several economists which suggested that P2P sharing might have actually helped record sales? I don't think there is clear evidence that file-sharing is hurting these companies at all. Give me a few hours for my chem lab then I'll find some info to back this up.
Ok, I suspect you're a troll, but the bait is too tempting. While trading copyrighted files is clearly illegal, I think the MPAA and RIAA have become overzealous in enforcing their IP policy.
They claim they lose billions of dollars a year as a result of P2P sharing, but those numbers are based on some faulty assumptions. The main one is that people who illegally download copyrighted material would have otherwise purchased that material. Of course I don't have hard evidence that the assumption is false, but ask yourself, have you deprived anyone of business lately as a result of your illegal file-sharing?
The main point here is that IP has gone too far. WE should have more rights than corporations, but unfortunately......
I agree that Diebold should fix the problems, but how likely does it seem that they will ever prduce a reliable system, based on their record? (I quote the e-mail sig of a high Diebold official, don't remember which: "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." sorry, but I can't find the emails anywhere at the moment, so no link)
What we need is transparency. The code on voting machines should be publicly available for scrutiny and input. I guess you'd call that *gasp* open source. In the current climate of IP paranoia, though, I suppose this is only a pipe dream.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, the Patriot Act consists most of legislation that law enforcement agencies (notably the FBI) have been trying to pass for years. Bascially, they wanted the powers the lost after the excesses of the Vietnam era back again. I don't know much about this personally, but a lawyer who is purportedly an expert on the act told me very little of it was drafted around the time it was introduced. The took all these old, failed bills, slapped them together with some language about terrorism, and rammed it through using some dirty tactics. Not many copies were actually distributed before it was voted on, and it was only distrubuted less than a day before the vote. This is a gigantic legal document, so there was no possibility to know what was in it before the vote. Another lawyer i spoke with, from the ACLU, told me that the day after this passed they received calls from numerous congressman who wanted to know what the hell they'd just voted for. Democracy in action!
I don't think you can make any respectable logical argument about the rights of animals. When people think of a particular organism being subjected to research, their moral judgement about the situatuion is likely to be based on how close a resemblence that organism bears to humans. As belief in the importance of the research varies (due both to individual differences and differences in the research itself), so will the threshold of how human-like a subject is acceptable.
Of course, some set their threshold at absolute minimum, saying that anything that we perceive as alive has rights that we infringe by subjecting it to research. When I meet one of these, I 1)immediately mention my lab works on yeast, and 2) ask if they like yogurt.
That is one interpretation of the appeal of video games (shooters in specific), but I think you are overlooking the common desire to escape from daily life, to "pass the time". Games which are more challenging engage more of your consciousness, and thus provide more escape. For many, video games are and addiction. And, like all addictions, the dose administered must increase over time or it loses it's effect. This is why video games become progressively more complicated and extreme. They MUST, or else they will lose interest. This is analagous to the escalation of exploitation on "reality" TV shows. Each show seems to be more degrading to it's participants than the last. How long before an analogue of gladiators appears? But I digress...
Many of the news sites are owned by big conglomerates, true. However, there are plenty of alternatives, and if you are cynical and savvy, as the parent most likely is, you read a wide variety of sources, many which are not owned by conglomerates.
I think they should impose some spending caps (or other analogous restrictions) on prize candidates. That way, efficiency would be a prime concern.
My Firefox google toolbar works perfectly (not "feeling lucky?" by default).
Many food producing species have been crossed with outside species (usually closely related, but not always). Crossing with outside species introduces a host of unknown factors, combining genes in a totally unique, unpredictable way. However, this was never a matter of heated public debate. Now if you want to add a single gene culled from some other organism, there is an outcry.
Seedless fruit varieties are generally the result of an uneven cross, where the offspring ends up with an uneven number of chromosome sets, and is thus sterile. These lineages are perpetuated by vegetative cloning (cutting).
Genetic manipulation of food producing plants has been around for some time. Now we have the technology to modify organisms in a more careful, precise way (although the outcomes are still unpredictable), but there is resistance. I think this stems mostly from sensationalist coverage of the new technology. Without the proper background information, people are shocked.
Of course this is a public health issue, and new food products should only be introduced to the public after careful testing. What irks me is the hyteria (not that the parent is hysteric).
I don't think anyone is worried about retailers using RFID tags to stremline their supply chain. What is worrisome is that the tags could end up in all the merchandise, and perhaps not be disabled when you purchase an RFID tagged item.
If RFID tags on the merchandise are disabled when you purchase the item, the only disadvantage is that Wal-mart (or whoever) could collect a lot more detailed information about people's shopping habits (and maybe correlate them with your personal info if you pay by credit card). Of course, that's only a disadvantage if you oppose extending the range of marketing efforts, as I do.
If the tags are not disabled when you purchase the item, there is a whole world of possibilites for how these things could be abused. What if you had a tag in your underpants (which you never change) that was eternally active? I think you can imagine the possibilities.
I agree, and I feel tortured after having the rare chance of posting a comment that would actually be read dangled before me then cruelly torn away. I'm beside myself with grief. I better call in sick. From class.
But "in the right" according to what? You make it sound so clear cut, but it certainly is not. Many who pirate software, say from M$, may feel that they are doing the world good by depriving M$ of a little revenue. Is it inherently "right" to protect the interests of hugely wealthy people/corporations , thereby assuring they can amass more wealth at the cost of others whose standard of living is plummeting? I'm not saying that it is always right to steal from the hugely wealthy, but just providing an example to show that morals are extremely hazy and have to be taken purely on a case by case basis. If by "in the right" you are referring to legality, we might as well stop debating. I see law as an attempt to formalize morality, which is not a formal system as far as I can see. just my two cents as well, all in the name of productive debate.
I certainly agree that debunking the claims of the RIAA and MPAA are not the main point here. We need to consider the merit of IP rights, and look at how to balance them with personal property.
I do not see how the money question is simply a distraction. As you brought up yourself, one of the important functions of IP law is to retain incentive for innovation, and that incentive is often monetary. So the question you call "distraction" is quite pertinent to one of your "larger questions." As I noted above, there are certainly higher level issues to be dealt with here, but the money issue is clearly not irrelevant.
Also, I reject the concert hall analogy on the grounds that a concert hall is clearly not a private space for those attending. Kicking out people who sneak into a show is hardly invasive. Tracking your downloading habits is quite a different issue. That's much more complicated, so I'd rather not go into it here, but I hope you can see the difference.
Did you notice the Harvard study released a few weeks ago by several economists which suggested that P2P sharing might have actually helped record sales? I don't think there is clear evidence that file-sharing is hurting these companies at all. Give me a few hours for my chem lab then I'll find some info to back this up.
Ok, I suspect you're a troll, but the bait is too tempting. While trading copyrighted files is clearly illegal, I think the MPAA and RIAA have become overzealous in enforcing their IP policy. They claim they lose billions of dollars a year as a result of P2P sharing, but those numbers are based on some faulty assumptions. The main one is that people who illegally download copyrighted material would have otherwise purchased that material. Of course I don't have hard evidence that the assumption is false, but ask yourself, have you deprived anyone of business lately as a result of your illegal file-sharing? The main point here is that IP has gone too far. WE should have more rights than corporations, but unfortunately......
I agree that Diebold should fix the problems, but how likely does it seem that they will ever prduce a reliable system, based on their record? (I quote the e-mail sig of a high Diebold official, don't remember which: "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." sorry, but I can't find the emails anywhere at the moment, so no link) What we need is transparency. The code on voting machines should be publicly available for scrutiny and input. I guess you'd call that *gasp* open source. In the current climate of IP paranoia, though, I suppose this is only a pipe dream.
This must be an April 1st prank. I know it's far from amusing for us, but surely the poster got a hoot.
Speaking of fail-safes, why don't they have an uninterruptable power supply? You'd think that would be required for BSL-4 facilities.
Is that John Carmack of id fame? Is he an active member of development?