There are some other major disadvantages to VoIP. For example, if you make an emergency call, rescuers can't automatically locate you (with cell phones they can triangulate). Also, it's a lot easier for people to manipulate this technology to make anonymous calls and thereby threaten and harass others. These are things people need to think about before concluding VoIP is good for mankind.
I totally agree. This will destroy any semblance of IP rights. People forget that the Library of Congress is one place you're going to want your book if it gets published.
And then, if this system ever comes out, anyone can put together the text of an entire book just by downloading it. (How much work would depend on whether it was just scanned or actually typed in.) And once that happens it will be legally possible to pirate a book, at least if you have a team working on it. Then the team could just flood the p2p networks with their legally-gotten gains and then there'd be no point for anyone to buy the book!
Then we're back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights. Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive?
This is a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.
A lot of famous people went on to leading a country after doing a stint in one of its prisons or being in exile: Napoleon, Hitler, Santa Anna, and Mandela that I can think of.
There's no comparison between the two. When you pirate music, you have the potential to spread the music to millions of people across a network, but when you swipe a CD, you just get one instantiation of the music. That's why they're treated differently.
When you watch TV, you're obligated to take it all as a package. When you take out the ads, you're taking away the profit from the content production, and are therefore effectively stealing. It's no different than if you got one of those invites to "free golf" at a condo but demanded that you not have to listen to the sales pitch that comes with it.
2. There are not "many" color or sound trademarks. There are very few sound trademarks- the NBC chime comes to mind, and Harley Davidson recently lost their attempt to trademark the Harley engine sound. As for colors, you can get your trademark in a specific color (to distinguish it from similar marks, but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones. Using colors for trademarks is more of a European thing, as the US only within the last year began accepting color drawings in trademark applications.
I think he meant that there are trademarks of logos that involve colors and trademarks of jingles that involve sounds, not that a solitary color or sound itself can be trademarked. (the implication being that there would be trademarks that are partly smell)
I thought episode I was actually pretty good, it had a good plot, a great cast of characters, and it all took place in an enchanting universe, one that you'll want to watch with your children.
Now that this system is out, anyone can put together the text of an entire book just by searching for quotations. (From any point an the book, find the surrounding text by re-searching for the text at the end of the excerpt.) And once that happens it will be legally possible to pirate a book, at least if you have a team working on it. Then the team could just flood the p2p networks with their legally-gotten gains and then there'd be no point for anyone to buy the book!
Then we're back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights. Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive?
This is a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.
In the dock example, the loss of jobs would occur somewhere else in how the dock is run.
You're forgetting that the reason these people want you to switch to wind is because it's cheaper. How can it be cheaper if you use more labor? Or are you saying that everything's okay because people will keep their jobs and just get paid less.
Also, you seem to accept that we're not going to make up these jobs in other sectors.
If the energy is cheaper, obviously a smaller portion of GDP is going to spent on the jobs, meaning there must be fewer total jobs than before in the energy sector. Otherwise, why switch if it takes the same manpower?
As for the new jobs being created elsewhere, that's pure conjecture, and, quite frankly, the empirical data don't bear you out.
When acting, people always attempt to substitute what they perceive to be a more, for what they perceive to be a less, satisfactory state of affairs. In comtemplating different states of affairs people consider not only the absolute magnitude of the satisfaction they expect to derive, but also the certainty with which they will occur, discounting future satisfactions due to their inherent uncertainty.
I just want to say that this bad news. Cheaper energy means fewer Americans working in the energy sector and that means fewer jobs for Americans and greater unemployment.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some other major disadvantages to VoIP. For example, if you make an emergency call, rescuers can't automatically locate you (with cell phones they can triangulate). Also, it's a lot easier for people to manipulate this technology to make anonymous calls and thereby threaten and harass others. These are things people need to think about before concluding VoIP is good for mankind.
I totally agree. This will destroy any semblance of IP rights. People forget that the Library of Congress is one place you're going to want your book if it gets published.
And then, if this system ever comes out, anyone can put together the text of an entire book just by downloading it. (How much work would depend on whether it was just scanned or actually typed in.) And once that happens it will be legally possible to pirate a book, at least if you have a team working on it. Then the team could just flood the p2p networks with their legally-gotten gains and then there'd be no point for anyone to buy the book!
Then we're back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights. Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive?
This is a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.
A lot of famous people went on to leading a country after doing a stint in one of its prisons or being in exile: Napoleon, Hitler, Santa Anna, and Mandela that I can think of.
There's no comparison between the two. When you pirate music, you have the potential to spread the music to millions of people across a network, but when you swipe a CD, you just get one instantiation of the music. That's why they're treated differently.
When you watch TV, you're obligated to take it all as a package. When you take out the ads, you're taking away the profit from the content production, and are therefore effectively stealing. It's no different than if you got one of those invites to "free golf" at a condo but demanded that you not have to listen to the sales pitch that comes with it.
2. There are not "many" color or sound trademarks. There are very few sound trademarks- the NBC chime comes to mind, and Harley Davidson recently lost their attempt to trademark the Harley engine sound. As for colors, you can get your trademark in a specific color (to distinguish it from similar marks, but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones. Using colors for trademarks is more of a European thing, as the US only within the last year began accepting color drawings in trademark applications.
I think he meant that there are trademarks of logos that involve colors and trademarks of jingles that involve sounds, not that a solitary color or sound itself can be trademarked. (the implication being that there would be trademarks that are partly smell)
Had no effect?? What race would you have to be to believe that?
I thought episode I was actually pretty good, it had a good plot, a great cast of characters, and it all took place in an enchanting universe, one that you'll want to watch with your children.
I don't follow, what's funny about that?
Now that this system is out, anyone can put together the text of an entire book just by searching for quotations. (From any point an the book, find the surrounding text by re-searching for the text at the end of the excerpt.) And once that happens it will be legally possible to pirate a book, at least if you have a team working on it. Then the team could just flood the p2p networks with their legally-gotten gains and then there'd be no point for anyone to buy the book!
Then we're back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights. Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive?
This is a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.
In the dock example, the loss of jobs would occur somewhere else in how the dock is run. You're forgetting that the reason these people want you to switch to wind is because it's cheaper. How can it be cheaper if you use more labor? Or are you saying that everything's okay because people will keep their jobs and just get paid less. Also, you seem to accept that we're not going to make up these jobs in other sectors.
not as a reliable source of energy. What these people didn't think about is the fact that, um, the wind isn't blowing all the time? HELLO?
If the energy is cheaper, obviously a smaller portion of GDP is going to spent on the jobs, meaning there must be fewer total jobs than before in the energy sector. Otherwise, why switch if it takes the same manpower? As for the new jobs being created elsewhere, that's pure conjecture, and, quite frankly, the empirical data don't bear you out.
When acting, people always attempt to substitute what they perceive to be a more, for what they perceive to be a less, satisfactory state of affairs. In comtemplating different states of affairs people consider not only the absolute magnitude of the satisfaction they expect to derive, but also the certainty with which they will occur, discounting future satisfactions due to their inherent uncertainty.
I just want to say that this bad news. Cheaper energy means fewer Americans working in the energy sector and that means fewer jobs for Americans and greater unemployment.