Nobody believed a bunch of farmers with pitchforks could leave their cows and defeat Imperial Britain either. Just needed the right circumstances and the right motivation (i.e. the current powers that be going too far and having overstretched their might).
*Sigh* it's like talking to a wall. Read the part in bold. The *purpose* of *granting* authors exclusive control was to benefit society (in advancement of useful arts and sciences). It is not something *fundamental* or inalienable as, say, freedom of speech, which is widely recognized as inherent (as per our declaration of independence).
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What did happen to it? What happened to the rights of artists to control their own works? Control of ideas (specifically how others use said ideas) was never considered at any point in time to be a fundamental right. Really, that's what we're talking about here. Control of *other* people. The people who download music are not erasing the ideas from the creator's head nor his ability to share those ideas/use them.
In fact, the explicit part of the Constitution which allows such a concept as copyright specifically 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"
Copyright is therefor, a means to an end. Its only reason for existence is to give incentive for inventions and creations. It is not in any way a fundamental right.
How is it that your "illegally downloading" (you said it yourself, don't point the finger at me) of music is to take over the rights of those who produce it? It is not a right. It's a privilege granted by the public for the benefit of the public. Essentially, society has said "we shall not copy each other's ideas because offering exclusivity to those ideas will cause the creation of more ideas."
There are far more efficient ways to deal with varying terrain than bipeds that require less design effort. Quadrupeds that can switch between wheel-mode and leg-mode for instance (depending on terrain). The fact that these guys focus so much on humanoids when there are clearly easier designs that offer more utility is most definitely due to the "I want my own personal robot sex slave" mentality.
I think the point wasn't whether our rent-a-Congress will legislate it to be "illegal" but whether the fundamental principles of civil rights and human freedoms allow for such a legislation.
The token argument that allows such laws have nothing to do with whether or not the existence of the pictures are legally flawed but rather that the access to said things (or open access such that a minor can get to it) is illegal. Even with that argument, I still disagree. However, the sheep mentality of the average person makes it difficult to argue for their personal liberties when someone holds the pedophile carrot on a stick in front of them.
Please get it through your head. There is a *HUGE* difference between wanting people to secure their WiFi and wanting THE GOVERNMENT to pass A LAW requiring it. It boggles the mind how people are unable to grasp such a vital distinction.
I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!
I don't see this research going towards better geared infantry. If it had, it might be fairly justifiable. That being said, if said money went towards the education system, maybe, just maybe, we'd have a more well-informed public that would've sneered at any politician on their first attempt at scaring up a war.
Materials found on the internet, where patents and copyrights are concerned, are not considered information in the public domain. Those who use it are therefore liable for patent/copyright infringement. That being said, the base amount of protection (automatic protection) provided by the current copyright and patent laws are fairly limited I think.
I've only a vague memory of the prequels (I try to forget more and more of it every day) but I don't think Obiwan ever offered to teach Han even the simplest parts of force-sensitivity. It was something you were born with. So no, I don't think the medichlorin's were that big of a deal. Choosing a wooden I-can-only-play-a-punk-teenager-with-angst-issues actor to play the arguably greatest villain ever concocted ranks way up there in terms of reasons why the prequels sucked.
That actually depends. A single-line AC wire (with the reference voltage as earth ground) would indeed have to fight inductance. A dual-lined transmission line, however, can actually benefit from mutual inductance (assuming the transmitted signals are phased correctly). Also, depending on reflections on the line, one could use the reflected energy (as there's sure to be an impedance discontinuity at the receive node) to help boost the signal strength (voltage level at the end node), but this would require making the length of your transmission wires multiples of the wavelength of your fundamental frequency.
I think Radiohead went overboard. There is not a valid business model when you say, "Pay whatever you want". If you disagree with this conclusion than consider how you will respond when your employer or customers decide they will start paying you whatever they want to and if that's not enough for rent, too bad for you. It's no way to make a living. That depends. If you look at the vast majority of recording contracts nowadays, the profits for the artist do not come from cd sales (since their contract states that they get a tiny fraction of the money made from them) but rather from merchandise, advertising, live concerts, etc. So their business model (from the artist's point of view) was never reliant on selling cd's. It was reliant on distributing music to enough people such that they'd buy the merchandise and concert tickets.
Before, the only way to do this was to have a big recording studio advertise for you and in return, allow them to make money from cd sales. With the internet, an alternative method for distribution (one that's virtually free) has come along. What Radiohead is doing is simply cutting out the middle man and distributing music themselves. They're most likely going to make more money than a traditional contract because they not only will have the money made from merchandise/ticket sales that they would've had but also from the money made from people who donate online.
I don't think there's an architecture out there that deals with unaligned instructions effectively. It's hardly a problem that solely exists with x86. The "encouraged to be used" instructions, however, do run very very fast and really, if the compiler is written to favor them, what's the problem?
Employees demanding more is hardly new. People wanting more is what drives a capitalistic world. Just because the most recent generation value certain things (freedom of lifestyle) and demand those from employers does not make it any less of a demand than, say, demanding a higher salary or benefits for family members, etc.
This idea that people are "entitled" is nonsense. Everyone wants as much as they can have and more. Employers want hard-working employees for cheap. Employees want to work less for more pay (or other types of compensation). A compromise is reached. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Attitudes like "be grateful for what they give you" only cause one side to gain an advantage and speaks of a subservient mentality.
It's a military problem. You think when we take down an Al Qaeda safehouse in Pakistan, we should be getting a warrant first and knocking on the door? Protecting the country from foreign enemies who want to destroy it, is by definition what the military is for.
Ok, scenario:
Foreign people enter the U.S. without any declaration of war. They are disguised as just visitors and/or immigrants. They are planning to execute a plot to blow up a building. They have support from several citizens of the U.S. Is this a problem for:
a) The FBI/CIA in conjunction with police forces. b) The army.
But because it's brown people, it all of a sudden becomes a "we're at war" thing?
"National security" IS the concern of the military, not the police force. It's obviously irrelevant whether or not the rhetoric involves the use of the word "war". But the country won't last much longer if we ever decide that national security is no longer a job for the military. The correct distinction is between fighting foreign enemies of our country and prosecuting domestic violators of domestic law.
Erm, no. See, we have an entire division of government that is setup to deal with foreign enemies that are not part of a military force (the CIA). The idea that the military is efficient at such activities is really stretching the idea of what a military is. And to get back to the original point, the acts of gathering intelligence and performing covert operations (and not a military strike against a foreign army) is absolutely not part of "warfare". The reason being that "war" is never declared. This may seem like semantics but there really are a few caveats that make the difference:
1. Only congress can declare war, whereas covert intelligence operations can be performed and ordered by the executive branch regardless of the blessings of congress. 2. There is no specific goal and criteria for covert intelligence operations. The executive branch does not have to qualify its progress and list a goal as an end.
In other words, the reason that "warfare" does not have to be supervised is because the conditions for starting war and ending war is determined by Congress, thereby putting a check and balance on what the executive branch is allowed to do. No such checks and balances exist for covert intelligence operations. Congress does not have the authority to declare "ok, the war on terror is over". Considering the fact that criminal investigation (and yes, terrorism is a criminal act) categorize squarely as a policing activity, I see it as absolutely reasonable to have the judiciary branch oversee it.
All those can either be handled like legal contracts (where the *State* government steps in only to enforce the contract that the two individuals constructed and agreed to with each other) or through non-legislative means (their respective churches for instance and/or holy leader).
Government has no business defining what a "marriage" is. If two people come and ask the government to uphold a contract they themselves drew up and agreed to, that is available as rule of law.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.
Terrorism is a policing problem, not a military problem. You're trying to find the hidden bad guys and catch them even when they're hiding amidst a bunch of innocent people. The military is there to wear a uniform and blow the other guy up for carrying a different flag. It is designed for cold-blooded destructive ability, not for its uncanny ability to tell friend from foe.
The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Again, it's national security, not warfare. Just because the hawks are screaming "we're at war" does not make it so. I suppose you think criminal procedures should not occur for prosecuting drug felons because it's the "war on drugs".
You're using a "because it is, it must be right" argument. The *mandatory* nature of jury duty may very well be considered unconstitutional. *Many* laws, if inspected for constitutional validity, don't meet that.
The general welfare clause could be interpreted to mean those. Though they'd have to be ratified on a case-by-case basis. No, I think the 14th amendment has more to do with this. All citizens are to be granted privileges and immunities becoming of a citizen of the United States to the end of securing life, liberty and equal protection of law.
I should have clarified. I used the term monstrous for the purpose of indicating that it's beyond practicality. That is, normalize whatever Google currently has now (for its search engines) as "normal" and imagine a cluster that is "monstrous" compared to that.
The actual decoding and meta-data extraction from each uploaded video may not take much but matching signatures within the entire database of content (including matching it to sublengths of different content to catch the 30-seconds-of-a-2-hour-movie cases) would require astronomical computational abilities.
This is an interesting point. On a tangent, what's to prevent the studios from just randomly marking any content they want, whether or not it's copyrighted, and having it taken down? What's the legal process provided to prove that said material really is copyrighted and owned by the person who claims that it is theirs?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody believed a bunch of farmers with pitchforks could leave their cows and defeat Imperial Britain either. Just needed the right circumstances and the right motivation (i.e. the current powers that be going too far and having overstretched their might).
*Sigh* it's like talking to a wall. Read the part in bold. The *purpose* of *granting* authors exclusive control was to benefit society (in advancement of useful arts and sciences). It is not something *fundamental* or inalienable as, say, freedom of speech, which is widely recognized as inherent (as per our declaration of independence).
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In fact, the explicit part of the Constitution which allows such a concept as copyright specifically 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"
Copyright is therefor, a means to an end. Its only reason for existence is to give incentive for inventions and creations. It is not in any way a fundamental right. How is it that your "illegally downloading" (you said it yourself, don't point the finger at me) of music is to take over the rights of those who produce it? It is not a right. It's a privilege granted by the public for the benefit of the public. Essentially, society has said "we shall not copy each other's ideas because offering exclusivity to those ideas will cause the creation of more ideas."
There are far more efficient ways to deal with varying terrain than bipeds that require less design effort. Quadrupeds that can switch between wheel-mode and leg-mode for instance (depending on terrain). The fact that these guys focus so much on humanoids when there are clearly easier designs that offer more utility is most definitely due to the "I want my own personal robot sex slave" mentality.
I think the point wasn't whether our rent-a-Congress will legislate it to be "illegal" but whether the fundamental principles of civil rights and human freedoms allow for such a legislation.
The token argument that allows such laws have nothing to do with whether or not the existence of the pictures are legally flawed but rather that the access to said things (or open access such that a minor can get to it) is illegal. Even with that argument, I still disagree. However, the sheep mentality of the average person makes it difficult to argue for their personal liberties when someone holds the pedophile carrot on a stick in front of them.
Please get it through your head. There is a *HUGE* difference between wanting people to secure their WiFi and wanting THE GOVERNMENT to pass A LAW requiring it. It boggles the mind how people are unable to grasp such a vital distinction.
I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!
I don't see this research going towards better geared infantry. If it had, it might be fairly justifiable. That being said, if said money went towards the education system, maybe, just maybe, we'd have a more well-informed public that would've sneered at any politician on their first attempt at scaring up a war.
Materials found on the internet, where patents and copyrights are concerned, are not considered information in the public domain. Those who use it are therefore liable for patent/copyright infringement. That being said, the base amount of protection (automatic protection) provided by the current copyright and patent laws are fairly limited I think.
I've only a vague memory of the prequels (I try to forget more and more of it every day) but I don't think Obiwan ever offered to teach Han even the simplest parts of force-sensitivity. It was something you were born with. So no, I don't think the medichlorin's were that big of a deal. Choosing a wooden I-can-only-play-a-punk-teenager-with-angst-issues actor to play the arguably greatest villain ever concocted ranks way up there in terms of reasons why the prequels sucked.
It's congruent with the gradual changes Intel has made to make the processor a vector-processor. This is simply the next step (FMAC).
That actually depends. A single-line AC wire (with the reference voltage as earth ground) would indeed have to fight inductance. A dual-lined transmission line, however, can actually benefit from mutual inductance (assuming the transmitted signals are phased correctly). Also, depending on reflections on the line, one could use the reflected energy (as there's sure to be an impedance discontinuity at the receive node) to help boost the signal strength (voltage level at the end node), but this would require making the length of your transmission wires multiples of the wavelength of your fundamental frequency.
Before, the only way to do this was to have a big recording studio advertise for you and in return, allow them to make money from cd sales. With the internet, an alternative method for distribution (one that's virtually free) has come along. What Radiohead is doing is simply cutting out the middle man and distributing music themselves. They're most likely going to make more money than a traditional contract because they not only will have the money made from merchandise/ticket sales that they would've had but also from the money made from people who donate online.
I don't think there's an architecture out there that deals with unaligned instructions effectively. It's hardly a problem that solely exists with x86. The "encouraged to be used" instructions, however, do run very very fast and really, if the compiler is written to favor them, what's the problem?
Employees demanding more is hardly new. People wanting more is what drives a capitalistic world. Just because the most recent generation value certain things (freedom of lifestyle) and demand those from employers does not make it any less of a demand than, say, demanding a higher salary or benefits for family members, etc.
This idea that people are "entitled" is nonsense. Everyone wants as much as they can have and more. Employers want hard-working employees for cheap. Employees want to work less for more pay (or other types of compensation). A compromise is reached. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Attitudes like "be grateful for what they give you" only cause one side to gain an advantage and speaks of a subservient mentality.
Ok, scenario:
Foreign people enter the U.S. without any declaration of war. They are disguised as just visitors and/or immigrants. They are planning to execute a plot to blow up a building. They have support from several citizens of the U.S. Is this a problem for:
a) The FBI/CIA in conjunction with police forces.
b) The army.
But because it's brown people, it all of a sudden becomes a "we're at war" thing?
Erm, no. See, we have an entire division of government that is setup to deal with foreign enemies that are not part of a military force (the CIA). The idea that the military is efficient at such activities is really stretching the idea of what a military is. And to get back to the original point, the acts of gathering intelligence and performing covert operations (and not a military strike against a foreign army) is absolutely not part of "warfare". The reason being that "war" is never declared. This may seem like semantics but there really are a few caveats that make the difference:
1. Only congress can declare war, whereas covert intelligence operations can be performed and ordered by the executive branch regardless of the blessings of congress.
2. There is no specific goal and criteria for covert intelligence operations. The executive branch does not have to qualify its progress and list a goal as an end.
In other words, the reason that "warfare" does not have to be supervised is because the conditions for starting war and ending war is determined by Congress, thereby putting a check and balance on what the executive branch is allowed to do. No such checks and balances exist for covert intelligence operations. Congress does not have the authority to declare "ok, the war on terror is over". Considering the fact that criminal investigation (and yes, terrorism is a criminal act) categorize squarely as a policing activity, I see it as absolutely reasonable to have the judiciary branch oversee it.
All those can either be handled like legal contracts (where the *State* government steps in only to enforce the contract that the two individuals constructed and agreed to with each other) or through non-legislative means (their respective churches for instance and/or holy leader).
Government has no business defining what a "marriage" is. If two people come and ask the government to uphold a contract they themselves drew up and agreed to, that is available as rule of law.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.
Terrorism is a policing problem, not a military problem. You're trying to find the hidden bad guys and catch them even when they're hiding amidst a bunch of innocent people. The military is there to wear a uniform and blow the other guy up for carrying a different flag. It is designed for cold-blooded destructive ability, not for its uncanny ability to tell friend from foe.
The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Again, it's national security, not warfare. Just because the hawks are screaming "we're at war" does not make it so. I suppose you think criminal procedures should not occur for prosecuting drug felons because it's the "war on drugs".
"Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges"
You're using a "because it is, it must be right" argument. The *mandatory* nature of jury duty may very well be considered unconstitutional. *Many* laws, if inspected for constitutional validity, don't meet that.
While true, it is still no business of the federal government.
"to pay for the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
The general welfare clause could be interpreted to mean those. Though they'd have to be ratified on a case-by-case basis. No, I think the 14th amendment has more to do with this. All citizens are to be granted privileges and immunities becoming of a citizen of the United States to the end of securing life, liberty and equal protection of law.
I should have clarified. I used the term monstrous for the purpose of indicating that it's beyond practicality. That is, normalize whatever Google currently has now (for its search engines) as "normal" and imagine a cluster that is "monstrous" compared to that.
The actual decoding and meta-data extraction from each uploaded video may not take much but matching signatures within the entire database of content (including matching it to sublengths of different content to catch the 30-seconds-of-a-2-hour-movie cases) would require astronomical computational abilities.
This is an interesting point. On a tangent, what's to prevent the studios from just randomly marking any content they want, whether or not it's copyrighted, and having it taken down? What's the legal process provided to prove that said material really is copyrighted and owned by the person who claims that it is theirs?