Here's a question: Is it better then what the current countries have already? If not, then it doesn't really matter. Currently the countries can say "Copyrights are now unlimited" and there's no reason (except for a possible uproar of the people) for them not to.
And what happens when these new government tools are used by government officials to molest children? If the next Brian Doyle is able to use his power and influence in the federal government to use these records to determine who's really a fourteen year-old girl and who's state law enforcement, where will we be then?
If it stops thousands of molestations, but enables 1, don't you think it's a bit better to have the law (ignoring privacy concerns, strictly talking about effectiveness in molestation cases)?
And these studies won't be slanted towards keeping the laws on the books? As I recall, the Digital Milennium Copyright Act calls for frequent studies like what you're calling for, and yet the Library of Congress keeps saying it's A-OK.
Guess you miss the part where I said "REAL study" which does in fact recognize the current government won't put together investigators that will be able to reasonably put aside their biases and merely look at the facts.
Guess you don't understand the concept of "more." It assumed you have some concern for both, but asks you to make a decision on which you think is more important.
The tactic totally works because we don't put freedom first. Instead we continually compromise a little bit of our freedom here and there for our pet concerns.
Well what ARE you more concerned about? Your privacy, or the safety of America's children? I won't judge your answer, but for many people, one IS more important then the other, and for the other people, the other option is more important.
What needs to be done is a REAL investigation on how effective these measures would truly be. Then if it's enacted, a study after a trial period to determine how effective the new laws really have been, and how much they've been used against other cases.
But America's political system doesn't encourage this. Instead it encourages people to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. Democrats will yell "civil liberties" while the Republicans will yell "think of the children" with one side winning, the other losing. The American people being the biggest losers with inadequate representation.
how else are you going to decide who's guilty and who's not
By reviewing what facts you know and deciding for yourself. The ruling of a jury is for the legal system. Free thinking human beings shouldn't supplant their own judgment for that of the legal system's.
Venus Express will orbit our nearest planetary neighbour for about 500 Earth days to study its atmosphere, which has undergone runaway greenhouse warming.
So if we don't find any SUVs on Venus, then we'll know once and for all that they DON'T cause greenhouse warming!
There exists a much more realistic way to get rid of world hunger. Kill half the starving, feed it to the other half. Rinse and repeat until there's no more starving people left in the world.
Thieves also can't get insurance for the laptop they just had stolen from them. I'd say the amount of laptops being stolen is actually even larger, as thieves get their laptops stolen as well, and they wouldn't report it.
So wait, I can sign a contract that says I'll keep stuff secret, and other people who haven't signed the contract are bound to it? Wow! I think contract law might need a slight change in America.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 0, Troll
If Joe Blogger got the information in question as an inside tip from somebody he can reasonably expect to be an Apple insider who's not authorized to disclose it, then he has broken a law.
I always think of nanotechnology as dealing with self-replicating machines that are at the atomic scale. But I suppose any "spray" can technically be classed as nanotechnology (if you define it as "technology at the atomic scale").
There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Actually, it is impossible for any nails to be placed in the coffin of creationism, because it isn't a theory that is able to be proven or disproven. However creationist proponents have placed creationism in opposition to evolution, so this can place a nail in the coffin of that use of creationism.
Oh, and creationists who claim that evolution and creationism have equal evidence backing up each theory (or even better, that there is more evidence to back up creationism then there is to back up evolution) ARE idiots. I'm always happy to hear evidence that helps prove creationism, but I've yet to actually see any. I've seen logical thoughts (as in "but how could it have happened? it's all so complex" although they do rely on premises that can be neither proven nor disproven themselves), but no direct real evidence (for instance, evolution was just a thought, a theory, until fossil records were discovered that helped prove it).
It's amazing what you can find if you have a preconception. Religious people do this every day of their lives, constantly finding proof of God being alive (and I of course am talking about the Christian God, that is the God that the Church of Latter Day Saints believe in, because there is no other god in existence), and yet scientists constantly dismiss their evidence, because they were found be people who had a prior belief. And yet when scientists do this, looking for evidence in a THEORY they believe in, and miraculously finding it, the scientists hold it up as the greatest achievement of mankind. They're just so hypocritical, and I am flabbergasted at why they hate God and America so much.
Oh no I concede your point, but corporations having all the rights as humans isn't intrinsic within the idea itself. As for my not knowing that yes, in America, corporations do have constitutional rights, it isn't something I've seen on slashdot before, and I'm Australian, so I don't get too much American news. All I said was "they don't necessarily have constitutional rights" and ammended it to "although I am willing to admit they do, if you can point to something saying they do."
Actually x-ray would just be like looking at the world as one big x-ray slide. Now a combination of infrared and using it during the day can cause clothes to dissapear, or so said a privacy article about cameras with infrared capability. So yeah, OP right, you wrong (that is, assuming the OP was being a pervert;)).
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question: Is it better then what the current countries have already? If not, then it doesn't really matter. Currently the countries can say "Copyrights are now unlimited" and there's no reason (except for a possible uproar of the people) for them not to.
And what happens when these new government tools are used by government officials to molest children? If the next Brian Doyle is able to use his power and influence in the federal government to use these records to determine who's really a fourteen year-old girl and who's state law enforcement, where will we be then?
If it stops thousands of molestations, but enables 1, don't you think it's a bit better to have the law (ignoring privacy concerns, strictly talking about effectiveness in molestation cases)?
And these studies won't be slanted towards keeping the laws on the books? As I recall, the Digital Milennium Copyright Act calls for frequent studies like what you're calling for, and yet the Library of Congress keeps saying it's A-OK.
Guess you miss the part where I said "REAL study" which does in fact recognize the current government won't put together investigators that will be able to reasonably put aside their biases and merely look at the facts.
Guess you don't understand the concept of "more." It assumed you have some concern for both, but asks you to make a decision on which you think is more important.
Maybe they want a log so they can find the best websites?
The tactic totally works because we don't put freedom first. Instead we continually compromise a little bit of our freedom here and there for our pet concerns.
Well what ARE you more concerned about? Your privacy, or the safety of America's children? I won't judge your answer, but for many people, one IS more important then the other, and for the other people, the other option is more important.
What needs to be done is a REAL investigation on how effective these measures would truly be. Then if it's enacted, a study after a trial period to determine how effective the new laws really have been, and how much they've been used against other cases.
But America's political system doesn't encourage this. Instead it encourages people to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. Democrats will yell "civil liberties" while the Republicans will yell "think of the children" with one side winning, the other losing. The American people being the biggest losers with inadequate representation.
What about those who were exposed? Does their DNA have it?
As a male I have no interest in the Arts, so of course I don't want a push for us males getting stuck in the arts ;)
I'm sure that was meant as a joke (atleast I hope it was), but that's taking it too far.
Too true. It'd an insult to the non-intellectually curious to compare them with Republicans.
how else are you going to decide who's guilty and who's not
By reviewing what facts you know and deciding for yourself. The ruling of a jury is for the legal system. Free thinking human beings shouldn't supplant their own judgment for that of the legal system's.
Actually Sinthehole just had the taste and none of the side-effects (like feeling happy, having impaired judgement, etc).
No it doesn't. If the first 3 pages are shit, I figure the rest will be as well.
Venus Express will orbit our nearest planetary neighbour for about 500 Earth days to study its atmosphere, which has undergone runaway greenhouse warming.
So if we don't find any SUVs on Venus, then we'll know once and for all that they DON'T cause greenhouse warming!
There exists a much more realistic way to get rid of world hunger. Kill half the starving, feed it to the other half. Rinse and repeat until there's no more starving people left in the world.
Thieves also can't get insurance for the laptop they just had stolen from them. I'd say the amount of laptops being stolen is actually even larger, as thieves get their laptops stolen as well, and they wouldn't report it.
So wait, I can sign a contract that says I'll keep stuff secret, and other people who haven't signed the contract are bound to it? Wow! I think contract law might need a slight change in America.
If Joe Blogger got the information in question as an inside tip from somebody he can reasonably expect to be an Apple insider who's not authorized to disclose it, then he has broken a law.
Which is simply ridiculous.
Considering both planets are now lifeless worlds, I'd say we're the survivors of two armageddons. And we still haven't learnt our lesson.
I always think of nanotechnology as dealing with self-replicating machines that are at the atomic scale. But I suppose any "spray" can technically be classed as nanotechnology (if you define it as "technology at the atomic scale").
Aaah, definition games. Fun.
I think the OP's comment still stands.
Go outside. See a cloud? That's how far above your head the joke went.
I would blame it on the ID proponent's inability to communicate their beliefs in a coherent manner.
There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Actually, it is impossible for any nails to be placed in the coffin of creationism, because it isn't a theory that is able to be proven or disproven. However creationist proponents have placed creationism in opposition to evolution, so this can place a nail in the coffin of that use of creationism.
Oh, and creationists who claim that evolution and creationism have equal evidence backing up each theory (or even better, that there is more evidence to back up creationism then there is to back up evolution) ARE idiots. I'm always happy to hear evidence that helps prove creationism, but I've yet to actually see any. I've seen logical thoughts (as in "but how could it have happened? it's all so complex" although they do rely on premises that can be neither proven nor disproven themselves), but no direct real evidence (for instance, evolution was just a thought, a theory, until fossil records were discovered that helped prove it).
Respectfully
aussie_a
It's amazing what you can find if you have a preconception. Religious people do this every day of their lives, constantly finding proof of God being alive (and I of course am talking about the Christian God, that is the God that the Church of Latter Day Saints believe in, because there is no other god in existence), and yet scientists constantly dismiss their evidence, because they were found be people who had a prior belief. And yet when scientists do this, looking for evidence in a THEORY they believe in, and miraculously finding it, the scientists hold it up as the greatest achievement of mankind. They're just so hypocritical, and I am flabbergasted at why they hate God and America so much.
Oh no I concede your point, but corporations having all the rights as humans isn't intrinsic within the idea itself. As for my not knowing that yes, in America, corporations do have constitutional rights, it isn't something I've seen on slashdot before, and I'm Australian, so I don't get too much American news. All I said was "they don't necessarily have constitutional rights" and ammended it to "although I am willing to admit they do, if you can point to something saying they do."
Actually x-ray would just be like looking at the world as one big x-ray slide. Now a combination of infrared and using it during the day can cause clothes to dissapear, or so said a privacy article about cameras with infrared capability. So yeah, OP right, you wrong (that is, assuming the OP was being a pervert ;)).