However, legalization of drugs in Mexico wouldn't work. The USA would have to legalize at the same time.
Any country doing it alone will fast become host to the international traffic. It might earn billions in tax money - and the scorn and protest of the rest of the world. It has to be a number of powerful countries together, which can hold their ground, and force other countries to just do it too.
After that, most likely drugs will for a while be a public health problem, lots of wasted, and OD dead people, hospitalizations, etc. Then it can be dealt with like cigarretes and alcohol - just severely limit the social options of whoever abuses them.
Even if health care was completely not for profit, it would still make sense to be aware of false positives on cancer screens.
Search the news and find articles saying pre-screening is bad for some reason, in prostrate, breast, and cervical cancer - that I have seen so far.
Yes, false positives are bad, and could be the real issue here. And greedy insurance companies could be the issue too. We haven't get the evidence or research to prove either issue yet.
But I can't see the logic of dealing with false positives by eliminating testing altogether, especially via news articles, and frases such as "cancer screening is pointless and could be bad for you". What I do see is that people don't care for their health or visit a doctor enough already. And that people visiting doctors to screen for diseases results in treatment for them, treatment that lets them live.
Seems like someone is driving a huge PR campaign for "let's not have people visit doctors and get cancer screening". It's likely actually just costing a group of HMO insurers more money to have lots of people treat cancers early and undergo lengthy treatment, and then survive, rather than have a smaller number of people detect it too late, do a short treatment, and then just die.
After all, health services are a business. We understand. You can't just have insured people liviing a long time and making businesses lose money.
It would be healthy to find more formats and models for open source project financing. Perhaps there would be more software and coding then. And more open souce forums. And more open source developer support. Google made a big contribution with summer of code, a new format. Kickstarter made another. I'm sure there must be many, many others which are not widely known.
I'm no alternative financing expert, bit thought of using complementary currencies, and transitioning closed-source to open-source upon reaching a sales target.
Removing all possible limits = adding all possible freedoms.
But the constitution says we *already* have all these rights. IANAL. But I'm pretty sure constitutional rights take priority over private and public property policies - especially public. That includes the needs of maintenance for the parks and profit for anyone else. I don't see how "license to shoot a movie" nowadays is different from "license to use any electronic device capable of filming - phones, camcorders, hidden mcro-cameras. Or "license to use a costume".
Unless you are shooting a movie with a huge crew, which is damaging and intefering with normal park activity, I don't see any other practical reasons to demand a "licence to shoot a movie".
What I want is a nice camera hidden in my baseball cap.
They're all pro-nuclear nuts here. They'd lie through their teeth about the risks if they thought it'd mean new reactors might get built.
It's hard to understand why human beings are so attached to one side of *every* question. Most people are almost completely unable to think straight because of hardened opinions, and cannot assimilate, much less evaluate, all data and points of view and draw conclusions. Unless they are basically experts in the field and have so much data and facts, that most of our one-sided opinions are classified as laughable religion and politics wars.
I mostly agree with you, but I hate when people call reducing greenhouse gasses expensive. Of course it is not free, but it is pretty cheap, we are talking about 5-10% GDP or about 2-3 years of growth, so not getting a raise for 2 years, and that is a worst case scenario and doesn't account for new technologies and discoveries.
It has a price, but it is not expensive.
There are many, many instances where environmental initiatives end up being financially *more* economical. The simple fact is that waste is incompatible with sustainable. If you try to make something environmentally sustainable, the first thing to examine is the waste, inefficiency, etc.
The resistance always ends up with the suppliers of whatever was this waste - they won't be selling it anymore. Hard adjustment.
All I know is that it's absolutely astounding what the lobby money can do with people's minds and national politics. It's just amazing that the entire US establishment cannot hold a reasonable debate on whether they believe in science or not - insane conspiracy theories, religion and politics take precedent and the debate just gets completely irrational, every time. I'd love to see a straight study of all the twists and turns lobbyists have taken the world and the country through over the years. I'm sure they have bought their own politics in every field... health, transportation, war, economy, society, education, etc.
Lots of work. They can't run water pipes all the way up the cable of the space elevator, so they'll have to take it up in buckets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
Legal and actual practice are two different worlds however. In short only rich people have privacy. The harsh reality in technology and privacy is that it's extremely difficult for anyone to actually prove anything and enforce one's rights. The law may say this and that is not legal, but the tools just make it easy to implement and impossible to trace. True privacy, not just on paper, is more and more becoming, in practice, a luxury few have money to buy and pay for. It takes a few lawyers and techs. Expensive ones. It's not only the police and FBI that have an interest in finding out who, where, and what happens in everyone's lives, mostly it's the marketing and sales for every single company everywhere. And you can bet they have the money and resources to find out whatever they need to about you - legal or not - all in an anonymized, "non personally identifiable" way.
Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?
No. I am suggesting governments speak at best in doublespeak, at worst in blatant lies. And reading between the lines is part of understanding what they say. It's been added to the conversation that 5000 "security contractors" are not soldiers, 17000 "embassy personnel" are not soldiers, and thus, it's not clear at all that US military activity in Iraq will end when the last "troops" leave. And so the military drones, satellites, information and psy ops, etc are quite possibly going to be part of the future picture as well - without even having to deploy any strategic truth.
They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.
Copyright reform has a point, and a party...
on
The Case For Piracy
·
· Score: 1
There's a difference between quantity and quality.
10-20 years of STRONG copyright is fine. 70 years is pretty absurd, if for nothing else, except for a few rarities, only books have much value if over 20 years old.
"Direct democracy" schemes help to better display how it actually works, the fact that real power is with whoever has the money, and the elections are to lead the public into accepting, rubber stamping and whitewashing the whole fraud. In fact whoever gets elected hardly has that much freedom themselves, they just each perform their acts, right, left, center, indignant, arrogant, etc, and get a share of the money according to the profitability of their performance.
To answer your questions, the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models, it is going at a rate which requires remedial action within a century, and I have yet to see anyone outside of the lunatic internet fringe claim that climate change is going to kill us all off, Roland Emmerich style.
It seems fairly clear that the only ones who stand to gain and are adamant on attacking the scientists are corporations selling oil, cars, and their lobbyists. Anyone else has basically been misled by the same corporate PR/propaganda lobby. PR, lobby and advertising nonsense does work very well on all of us - if it didn't there just wouldn't be much of it. Anyone would do well to question exactly where do ideas originally come from and exactly who stands to gain the most from whatever stance...
And all these companies are not paying royalties and licensing for all of society's and history's knowledge, services, etc. They inherit and use, without paying, millions of ideas - the English language, the written word, math, chemistry, engineering, physics, electric power, the wheel, it's infinite. If this practice of "all ideas from here on are private property, all uses of previous ideas must be paid for" continues for a few more decades, all human action will eventually be either indebting or illegal. Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film
Short term it seems that it would work for us to just make patents and copyrights expire sooner, say for example ten years. The politics and interest groups of course won't make it easy to do...
Locking down products and ideas to the person who originally introduced them doesn’t work patents don’t work and I don’t think a free for all would either (copying something is always cheaper than development). So what is the solution here?
Ultimately what's broken is the financial system - it doesn't reward best those who do the work that helps the most. It rewards best those who are good at taking rewards. That's just how money has always worked. The economy where everything was scarce is gone - with technology now pretty much everything could be made plentiful. The economy hasn't adjusted.
Given that the economic system is today the way it is... as far as "Intellectual Property", I'd wager that the best solution is that society take an interest in these people and support them somehow. In many cases, as in science in general, it is clear that their result is both often incredibly important, and of little direct economic profit to anyone in particular. If society doesn't directly support science, it often simply won't happen. There are however infinite cases where the work is of great social value and little financial reward or social support. As pretty much anyone who has ever set out to "to the right thing" can tell you. Teachers, artists, community leaders, inventors, writers... and anyone at all.
In fact the majority of us have some complaints about having to spend a lot of time talking and dealing and worrying about the money and not enough actually doing useful things. That's just the way it's all set up - it's not about work at all, it's about the supposed shortage of measurement units of work.
Bill Gates: "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Ariel Katz, a law professor at the University of Toronto and an expert on the economics of piracy: "Microsoft benefits from piracy, then says, 'If you think prices are high, blame the Chinese, because they are the thieves,' "
"They like us to feel guilty — to think that piracy is wrong and immoral. Economically, it's not necessarily true, but it resonates with the public."
Slashdot Mirror
However, legalization of drugs in Mexico wouldn't work. The USA would have to legalize at the same time.
Any country doing it alone will fast become host to the international traffic. It might earn billions in tax money - and the scorn and protest of the rest of the world. It has to be a number of powerful countries together, which can hold their ground, and force other countries to just do it too.
After that, most likely drugs will for a while be a public health problem, lots of wasted, and OD dead people, hospitalizations, etc. Then it can be dealt with like cigarretes and alcohol - just severely limit the social options of whoever abuses them.
Even if health care was completely not for profit, it would still make sense to be aware of false positives on cancer screens.
Search the news and find articles saying pre-screening is bad for some reason, in prostrate, breast, and cervical cancer - that I have seen so far.
Yes, false positives are bad, and could be the real issue here. And greedy insurance companies could be the issue too. We haven't get the evidence or research to prove either issue yet.
But I can't see the logic of dealing with false positives by eliminating testing altogether, especially via news articles, and frases such as "cancer screening is pointless and could be bad for you". What I do see is that people don't care for their health or visit a doctor enough already. And that people visiting doctors to screen for diseases results in treatment for them, treatment that lets them live.
Seems like someone is driving a huge PR campaign for "let's not have people visit doctors and get cancer screening". It's likely actually just costing a group of HMO insurers more money to have lots of people treat cancers early and undergo lengthy treatment, and then survive, rather than have a smaller number of people detect it too late, do a short treatment, and then just die.
After all, health services are a business. We understand. You can't just have insured people liviing a long time and making businesses lose money.
I wonder if they would consider lending the design for hosting a Chinese Pirate Bay, too. :)
> China — as in, the country itself — probably reverse engineered from a DEC Alpha CPU in 2001
So I guess that makes China first to implement Picasso/Jobs piracy-thievery ethics, thus inventing the first "Pirate Supercomputer".
Corsicans should be proud.
It likely won't be long before there are plans for a DIY supercomputer that a group of engineers can build in their homes.
It would be healthy to find more formats and models for open source project financing. Perhaps there would be more software and coding then. And more open souce forums. And more open source developer support. Google made a big contribution with summer of code, a new format. Kickstarter made another. I'm sure there must be many, many others which are not widely known.
I'm no alternative financing expert, bit thought of using complementary currencies, and transitioning closed-source to open-source upon reaching a sales target.
Removing all possible limits = adding all possible freedoms.
But the constitution says we *already* have all these rights. IANAL. But I'm pretty sure constitutional rights take priority over private and public property policies - especially public. That includes the needs of maintenance for the parks and profit for anyone else. I don't see how "license to shoot a movie" nowadays is different from "license to use any electronic device capable of filming - phones, camcorders, hidden mcro-cameras. Or "license to use a costume".
Unless you are shooting a movie with a huge crew, which is damaging and intefering with normal park activity, I don't see any other practical reasons to demand a "licence to shoot a movie".
What I want is a nice camera hidden in my baseball cap.
The dark side has it's own gravity.
But don't bother asking anything about radiation.
They're all pro-nuclear nuts here. They'd lie through their teeth about the risks if they thought it'd mean new reactors might get built.
It's hard to understand why human beings are so attached to one side of *every* question. Most people are almost completely unable to think straight because of hardened opinions, and cannot assimilate, much less evaluate, all data and points of view and draw conclusions. Unless they are basically experts in the field and have so much data and facts, that most of our one-sided opinions are classified as laughable religion and politics wars.
I mostly agree with you, but I hate when people call reducing greenhouse gasses expensive. Of course it is not free, but it is pretty cheap, we are talking about 5-10% GDP or about 2-3 years of growth, so not getting a raise for 2 years, and that is a worst case scenario and doesn't account for new technologies and discoveries.
It has a price, but it is not expensive.
There are many, many instances where environmental initiatives end up being financially *more* economical. The simple fact is that waste is incompatible with sustainable. If you try to make something environmentally sustainable, the first thing to examine is the waste, inefficiency, etc.
The resistance always ends up with the suppliers of whatever was this waste - they won't be selling it anymore. Hard adjustment.
All I know is that it's absolutely astounding what the lobby money can do with people's minds and national politics. It's just amazing that the entire US establishment cannot hold a reasonable debate on whether they believe in science or not - insane conspiracy theories, religion and politics take precedent and the debate just gets completely irrational, every time. I'd love to see a straight study of all the twists and turns lobbyists have taken the world and the country through over the years. I'm sure they have bought their own politics in every field... health, transportation, war, economy, society, education, etc.
Lots of work. They can't run water pipes all the way up the cable of the space elevator, so they'll have to take it up in buckets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
It is getting kind of hot.
Maybe. But I have to wonder if it's just toothless legislation.
Legal and actual practice are two different worlds however. In short only rich people have privacy. The harsh reality in technology and privacy is that it's extremely difficult for anyone to actually prove anything and enforce one's rights. The law may say this and that is not legal, but the tools just make it easy to implement and impossible to trace. True privacy, not just on paper, is more and more becoming, in practice, a luxury few have money to buy and pay for. It takes a few lawyers and techs. Expensive ones. It's not only the police and FBI that have an interest in finding out who, where, and what happens in everyone's lives, mostly it's the marketing and sales for every single company everywhere. And you can bet they have the money and resources to find out whatever they need to about you - legal or not - all in an anonymized, "non personally identifiable" way.
Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?
No. I am suggesting governments speak at best in doublespeak, at worst in blatant lies. And reading between the lines is part of understanding what they say. It's been added to the conversation that 5000 "security contractors" are not soldiers, 17000 "embassy personnel" are not soldiers, and thus, it's not clear at all that US military activity in Iraq will end when the last "troops" leave. And so the military drones, satellites, information and psy ops, etc are quite possibly going to be part of the future picture as well - without even having to deploy any strategic truth.
They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.
There's a difference between quantity and quality.
10-20 years of STRONG copyright is fine. 70 years is pretty absurd, if for nothing else, except for a few rarities, only books have much value if over 20 years old.
There is something to do about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party
"Direct democracy" schemes help to better display how it actually works, the fact that real power is with whoever has the money, and the elections are to lead the public into accepting, rubber stamping and whitewashing the whole fraud. In fact whoever gets elected hardly has that much freedom themselves, they just each perform their acts, right, left, center, indignant, arrogant, etc, and get a share of the money according to the profitability of their performance.
To answer your questions, the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models, it is going at a rate which requires remedial action within a century, and I have yet to see anyone outside of the lunatic internet fringe claim that climate change is going to kill us all off, Roland Emmerich style.
It seems fairly clear that the only ones who stand to gain and are adamant on attacking the scientists are corporations selling oil, cars, and their lobbyists. Anyone else has basically been misled by the same corporate PR/propaganda lobby. PR, lobby and advertising nonsense does work very well on all of us - if it didn't there just wouldn't be much of it. Anyone would do well to question exactly where do ideas originally come from and exactly who stands to gain the most from whatever stance...
And all these companies are not paying royalties and licensing for all of society's and history's knowledge, services, etc. They inherit and use, without paying, millions of ideas - the English language, the written word, math, chemistry, engineering, physics, electric power, the wheel, it's infinite. If this practice of "all ideas from here on are private property, all uses of previous ideas must be paid for" continues for a few more decades, all human action will eventually be either indebting or illegal. Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film
Short term it seems that it would work for us to just make patents and copyrights expire sooner, say for example ten years. The politics and interest groups of course won't make it easy to do...
Locking down products and ideas to the person who originally introduced them doesn’t work patents don’t work and I don’t think a free for all would either (copying something is always cheaper than development). So what is the solution here?
Ultimately what's broken is the financial system - it doesn't reward best those who do the work that helps the most. It rewards best those who are good at taking rewards. That's just how money has always worked. The economy where everything was scarce is gone - with technology now pretty much everything could be made plentiful. The economy hasn't adjusted.
Given that the economic system is today the way it is... as far as "Intellectual Property", I'd wager that the best solution is that society take an interest in these people and support them somehow. In many cases, as in science in general, it is clear that their result is both often incredibly important, and of little direct economic profit to anyone in particular. If society doesn't directly support science, it often simply won't happen. There are however infinite cases where the work is of great social value and little financial reward or social support. As pretty much anyone who has ever set out to "to the right thing" can tell you. Teachers, artists, community leaders, inventors, writers... and anyone at all.
In fact the majority of us have some complaints about having to spend a lot of time talking and dealing and worrying about the money and not enough actually doing useful things. That's just the way it's all set up - it's not about work at all, it's about the supposed shortage of measurement units of work.
Steve Jobs:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/452150-bill-gates-isnt-too-bothered-by-piracy/
Bill Gates:
"It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Ariel Katz, a law professor at the University of Toronto and an expert on the economics of piracy:
"Microsoft benefits from piracy, then says, 'If you think prices are high, blame the Chinese, because they are the thieves,' "
"They like us to feel guilty — to think that piracy is wrong and immoral. Economically, it's not necessarily true, but it resonates with the public."