Your first scenario said in your front window. I took that to mean that you put it right in front of your window facing outward (like on an easel or something). Now you are saying it's just on a wall in your front room which happens to have a big window through which the public can see the picture. In either case however, you would have to go to court to be sued for copyright infringement and you would have to have a judge/jury declare you guilty of such.
In my opinion, if it's on a wall in your front room, I would be absolutely shocked if you were found guilty. Maybe if you put it in such a place as to only be reasonably visible from the outside would you have a chance of losing that case. Again, though, I think they would have to at least prove that somebody saw it there. That is, it would be two different cases were one hung by the window inside a hermit's shack in the wasteland of North Dakota, and one was hung out the window of a first floor apartment in the middle of the Bronx.
To my knowledge, publicly shouting "I have marijuana for sale!!!" is not a crime. That would be covered under free speech. That is why they have undercover agents that try to buy it from you. They see that you are indeed selling it and then bust you on charges such as possession of a controlled substance, or selling a controlled substance, etc. If they tried to buy it from you and you really were not selling it, then I suppose you could be charged with false advertising.
But you do bring up a good point. Namely, there are laws that state it is illegal to possess marijuana. That I know of, there is no law that states it is illegal to possess a copyrighted work obtained from a copyright infringer.
My earlier post specifically states that you cannot copyright band names or song titles but that band names can be trademarked. It even gives a phone number to call for more information about it.
The best I can figure is that you were pointing out that if I named a file as Britney-Spears-Oops-I-Did-It-Again.mp3 that wasn't actually Britney Spears or her song then Britney Spears could ask me to stop using that filename. Am I missing something or is that correct?
All this "wrong" or "worse" talk is about feelings, of which should not be involved in facts.
Yes, let's keep it to facts.
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
From this we can infer that there are 5 ways to infringe copyright
1. Reproduce - This one is long, see next paragraph.
2. Distribute - downloading is not distributing.
3. Performed - downloading is not performing.
4. Publicly display - downloading is not a public display.
5. Make into a derivative work - downloading is not making a derivative work.
So the only possibility is reproduction. To my knowledge, no law or court case has addressed this specifically so all we have is conjecture. It could be argued that the downloader made a copy. What I think would really be the case is that the downloader requested a copy, but it was the uploader who actually made the copy from his hard drive to his network card. The reason I make the distinction is precisely because copies for copyrighted works are made all the time on a single machine. When I play the Flobot's "Handlebars" a copy goes from my hard drive to memory and at some point has to go through the CPU. So we can't obviously count every single time a copy is made. If we did, then every router that it went through would be held liable for making a copy. So the downloader requests a copy, then the uploader makes a copy, and that is where copyright infringement has occurred.
It's kind of like a guy on the street with a DVD burner and a list of movies he has. He can advertise it all he wants without committing copyright infringement. Then someone comes up to him and asks for one of his movies. He puts a blank disk in the burner, burns the requested movie onto it, and then passes the disk to the requester. The guy on the street committed copyright infringement at the point that he burned the movie onto the disk (reproduced) and handed it to the requester (distributed), but at no point did the requester commit copyright infringement. In the same way, the downloader did not commit copyright infringement.
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
In this case, you have publicly displayed the copyrighted work. To publicly display it, it only has to be visible to the public. If no one in the public sees it, I suppose you could argue that it's not copyright infringement. Note that it is totally unimportant that someone takes a picture of it. If they see it, it was copyright infringement. Whether anyone would ever take you to court over it is another issue altogether.
Can I copyright the name of my band?
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information.
The above question/answer also tells us you cannot copyright the name of a song. Thus, just seeing that someone has Britney-Spears-Oops-I-Did-It-Again.mp3 on their share does not mean that copyright infringement has occurred.
I find it hard to believe that my liability should depend so absolutely on the actions of others.
But in this case, no crime has occurred unless and until someone downloads. Why should you be held liable for copyright infringement if you never distributed a copyrighted work? Until someone downloads the copyrighted work, you haven't distributed it, thus no infringement has occurred.
This is one of those times where someone else has to do something in order for what you do to be considered a crime.
I also don't believe that putting the track on a p2p share is "just making available" because of the implicit advertising of availability.
But advertising availability isn't copyright infringement. You infringe when you distribute. So if no one has downloaded, you haven't distributed, thus you haven't infringed copyright. It's a very dangerous thing to start saying that intent is enough to convict a person of a crime. Intent ought to be considered when a crime has occurred, but to outlaw intent itself sets very bad precedent.
Only if they download it from the original creator's IP address is it not copyright infringement.
Or if they download it from someone who also has been given permission to distribute. But if that person wasn't given permission to distribute, then that person is infringing the copyright, not the RIAA.
To my knowledge, no one has been sued for downloading a song. Correct me if I'm wrong, but downloading isn't illegal since you aren't infringing the copyright, which is the right to copy and distribute. An argument could be made that in order to download you have to make a copy, but that would be about as effective as arguing that a media player makes a copy from the hard drive to RAM to the CPU in order to play it, and is thus infringement. But, with some of the court decisions being made, who knows, maybe that would fly.
Seriously, some one please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to see the law or a court case which showed otherwise.
I wouldn't mind a checkout system where they didn't even need to find the upc (or for that matter, could scan the whole cart in one go instead of item by item).
I'd be bothered by that. Well, not me, but my wife would. She watches as each item goes by to make sure that the price they are charging is the price that was on the shelf. I just let it go, but it seems that nearly every time she does the shopping at least one item is priced higher at checkout than on the shelf, and because they do it one item at a time, she can catch that easier.
Maybe with RFID being used the entire trip from maker to deliverer to stock boy to shelf to checkout then they can keep the prices updated better, but until I see it, I doubt my wife or people like her will end up using any less time at the checkout for this reason.
Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case
And who personally wet himself at the battle of Badon Hill.
FWIW, I don't have Comcast, but I have seen their advertisements that proclaim unlimited usage. Maybe they don't do that anymore, but they did, and even when they were advertising it, they weren't delivering it. If you advertise something but don't offer it then you're being deceptive. Like I said, it doesn't matter that their actual contract doesn't allow for unlimited usage, their advertisements say they do. So either they do offer it or they don't. Seeing as how we are even having this discussion, we know they don't, so why were/are they advertising it as such in the first place. We've all seen the ads so you show me where they actually offer it. If you can find it, you win the Internet, otherwise, they're liars and should be taken to court.
As for content paying, you must not have any idea how these networks work. Youtube has some provider whom they pay. I have a provider whom I pay, I think it is safe to say that Youtube does not have the same provider that I have, so let's pretend Level 3 links my provider and youtube's provider. In which case, Youtube's provider pays Level 3 and my provider pays Level 3. So once again, all connections have someone who is paying. Where are you getting this idea that content isn't paying for a connection to the Internet?
There are 2 ends to every connection, but only one end is paying. The content won't pay so now a way must be found to have the user pay.
What are you talking about? If something is on the Internet, it got their by having a connection. If I am seeing that something on my end, I'm doing so because I paid for my end of the connection. There are two ends, and both ends are paying. I pay for my end, and Google, Slashdot, Newegg, dilbert.com, weather.com, Youtube, newsoftheweird.com, etc also pay for their connection. So where do get the idea that content isn't paying for their end?
Since they, the ISP's, couldn't get the content to pay for the bandwidth they used[1], they switched to blocking / throttling what they consider abusive traffic[2]. Again, you can argue whether it's abusive or not, but it's what they stated.[3]
[1]The content is paying for their connection. [2]How do you abuse unlimited? If that's what they advertised, then you should get it. Too bad for the ISPs for advertising what they couldn't deliver. It doesn't matter that they didn't expect people to use it, it's irrelevant that their actual contract has vague wording that says they don't offer unlimited service, they advertised it, they should deliver it, otherwise they are being fraudulent and should be taken to court. [3]And they're lying. You cannot abuse unlimited, so they're lying, unless they don't offer unlimited, in which case, their advertisements are deceptive. In either case, they've lost all trust and no one should care what they say.
there's no such thing as a fender-bender in the air.
But with this, there will now be such things as having a fender-bender with an airplane on the road. And then the pilot's $250,000 car-plane is only useful for driving because his wing got a little damaged.
I agree with you here. The whole concept of a car-plane is broken at the idea stage. Whether it is more car or more plane is irrelevant.
I'd like to know their update policy. I bought a house over a year ago. At the time Google Maps showed the land as being just a field, even though it had had streets on it for a while. A few months ago they updated the satellite image but only to the time when the roads were being excavated but before they were paved. However, Street View shows my house after I moved in. I can't figure it out.
I would hate an edit feature. That is what proofreading is for. Once you commit your post that should be it. I can't tell you how many times I've been in forums that allow editing of posts and suddenly I don't know what anyone is talking about simply because I showed up late. One person makes a comment, other people discuss, then that person edits his post to something else.
Not only that, it would be horrible for avoiding the trolls. All they would need to do is get a +5 informative on a post then edit it to be a link to a virus filled site or something else.
Does that mean that everywhere else, Soviet Russia went out with "In Soviet Russia" jokes? And since "In Soviet Russia" jokes have not gone out, does that mean that Soviet Russia has not gone out yet?
You are so right. Get a large enough arena and that would work. Player's wouldn't have quite the control as the broom would give them, but give each player a pressurized air canister and they could move themselves around. Just to increase the look and feel of it, have them ride around on the containers but disguise them as brooms. You could even do the same to the snitch, but have the canister release at random times, in random directions. That way you get a snitch that is hard to catch. Do the same for the bludgers, but give them a bit of AI so that they try to hit the other players.
The only MP3 player I own is older than any iPod and I haven't used it in over 4 years, but I can understand what the guy is saying. What I want to listen to doesn't change on a weekly or even daily basis. Sometimes I'll just finish listening to a Foo Fighters song and I'll want to hear the theme song for Indiana Jones. After some of that I might want to hear some Bill Cosby. Then I want to hear something by Depeche Mode. So if you can predict your future music moods every time you see your computer, then not having access works. But if your music mood changes more often then you'll want it all on your iPod. For this guy 32GB is "wofeully inadequate." He's already said he's got 100GB of music.
the point being made is that 32 gigs is hardly "woefully inadequate" by most people's standards on a portable music listening device.
You need to go back and read the original post. In it he says
Yeah the iPod touch is cool, but 32GB is woefully inadequate.
Before that he mentioned he has a 40GB iPod, then he mentions it would be nice to have the 160GB iPod but he's considering another MP3 player that is also 160GB. However, nowhere does he say he's speaking for "most people" or even for any group of people. I think it's pretty clear that he is speaking for himself.
I'm really late to reply to this and I doubt it's going to make a difference, but if you're going to copy and paste this story a million times, at least go to the trouble of making sure it's correct. WTO is the World Trade Organization. The World Health Organization is WHO.
There are NO problems with the vegan diet, it's the NATURAL diet of human beings.
Probably so, but it is also natural for humans to eat meat. So either route is perfectly acceptable.
Please try to look at this rationally and objectively
Yes, let's do that shall we?
humans most certainl are NOT supposed to suck milk from cow's udders, or any other animals' udders, are they?
No, that's why we milk the cows first, then drink the milk. But seriously, who says we are not supposed to? It's not poisonous to us, in general human bodies can tolerate it, and a rather large percentage of mankind for thousands of years enjoys it. What isn't natural about that? It's no more unnatural than taking cereal grains and making flour. Who says we are supposed to be eating the leaves off of plants? Are we supposed to be eating roots?
We are mammals just like all other mammals, and we're supposed to drink HUMAN milk (our mother's) until we're two or three years old, and that's IT, over with.
Who says it's only for a couple of years. I'm pretty sure that is what society dictates. There are people who don't nurse, and there are people who nurse until much later than 3 years old. Yes, it's hard on the mother to do that, and is certainly not necessary, but then, it's not necessary to do it 2-3 years either. In either case, just because our human female mammals produce milk, I don't see that as any reason why drinking another female mammal's milk is wrong.
We are also not supposed to eat eggs - how many human beings do you know who are over fifty who could climb a tree and get a bird's egg from a nest?
Again with this supposed to stuff. Who and/or what says what is supposed to happen. We can eat it, our bodies can digest and extract nutrients from it. So why are we supposed to shuck corn, but not crack open a shell? And besides that, I can think of plenty of people (some older than 60) who could climb a tree and grab some eggs. How is that even part of this discussion? Back in our hunting and gathering days, few people even lived to be 50 years old anyway.
And how many human beings do you know who would happily eat that same egg if it had a growing baby chick embryo inside it?
Viet people would do it. My wife's parents love the stuff. I had it once with them. It tasted alright, but I did have to get past the idea of it and would probably not do it again because of that reason. However, I also have to force veggies past my gag reflex a lot of times, especially the leafy stuff. I can't stand cooked spinach. The taste is barely tolerable, the sight is disgusting. It looks like raked up leaves left in the gutter for a couple of months.
Finally, 99.9% of human beings have no chance in hell of ever catching their prey with their bare hands and killing it with their hands and teeth.
That has more to do with society than anything else. If I were plopped into a rain forest with nothing but what indigenous people have, I'd probably die within a week. I couldn't do what the people in the African Bush do either. But that has more to do with me never having to learn that stuff. I can and do grow stuff in a garden. The land mass I live on is hardly enough for me to start raising my own cattle, however. And even if it was, I would still find it easier for someone else to do that and I'll just get it at the market. Isn't great that humans are able to specialize like that.
Anybody who CAN do such a thing would quite rightly be regarded a psychopath.
Anybody who can do that is not someone I would want to be making fun of. If someone did that, we would all think him a psychopath, but then, that's why we invented tools to do so. We have guns and whatever it is that the slaughter house uses, while our ancestors had rocks a
It's not anymore a hybrid than an electric car. With an electric car you have a plug that goes into your wall socket and charges its batteries. But what do you do on long trips where you don't want to wait three hours for the batteries to charge? Easy, before you go you rent (or buy) a trailer that is designed specifically to be a generator that you can plug stuff into. The outlet looks just like a wall outlet. It's like bringing the wall with you if you will.
So maybe in the trunk is a bad idea (which I agree with on grounds that if you are going on a long trip, you probably want that trunk space for luggage instead of a generator and 5 gallon tank of gas). So you use the trailer that could have a standard hitch to fit on any car. You buy one or rent it as needed and it will fit your car. Even if they aren't as efficient as a car engine is now, since you are only using it for long trips the reduction in gasoline usage will still be vast.
And since we are putting these on special trailers we can have all the pollution controls built into them. Sure I suppose somebody will just throw a regular generator into a trailer, but if the world went to electric vehicles with gas generators only for long trips, we could handle the small amount of increased pollution from those few who refuse to get the pollution controlled generators.
I read somewhere here on slashdot the solution to the problems many have with long distance drives. Essentially it was have your car be electric, but have a space in the trunk or under the hood or even a small trailer that could hold a generator and a small tank of gas. You just plug the generator directly into your engine and when the batteries start to get low on power, the generator kicks on and charges them back up.
I think it's a brilliant idea. Then when you use your car like you usually do (short drives in town) you don't use any gas. And when you need to go further you can do so. In fact, you don't even need to own the generator. Maybe Hertz or Enterprise could rent them out or something. And if you're going on really long trips, you can get a larger generator.
I just like the idea of an electric vehicle because of the decoupling. Sure we use a lot of coal now, but it's easier to clean up the pollutants when they are in one place then when they are being spewed out every 20 feet on the road. Also, energy companies could change their energy source and drivers wouldn't even know or care. They could switch to geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever, and drivers wouldn't have to spend a dime on their car for it to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Your first scenario said in your front window. I took that to mean that you put it right in front of your window facing outward (like on an easel or something). Now you are saying it's just on a wall in your front room which happens to have a big window through which the public can see the picture. In either case however, you would have to go to court to be sued for copyright infringement and you would have to have a judge/jury declare you guilty of such.
In my opinion, if it's on a wall in your front room, I would be absolutely shocked if you were found guilty. Maybe if you put it in such a place as to only be reasonably visible from the outside would you have a chance of losing that case. Again, though, I think they would have to at least prove that somebody saw it there. That is, it would be two different cases were one hung by the window inside a hermit's shack in the wasteland of North Dakota, and one was hung out the window of a first floor apartment in the middle of the Bronx.
To my knowledge, publicly shouting "I have marijuana for sale!!!" is not a crime. That would be covered under free speech. That is why they have undercover agents that try to buy it from you. They see that you are indeed selling it and then bust you on charges such as possession of a controlled substance, or selling a controlled substance, etc. If they tried to buy it from you and you really were not selling it, then I suppose you could be charged with false advertising.
But you do bring up a good point. Namely, there are laws that state it is illegal to possess marijuana. That I know of, there is no law that states it is illegal to possess a copyrighted work obtained from a copyright infringer.
My earlier post specifically states that you cannot copyright band names or song titles but that band names can be trademarked. It even gives a phone number to call for more information about it.
The best I can figure is that you were pointing out that if I named a file as Britney-Spears-Oops-I-Did-It-Again.mp3 that wasn't actually Britney Spears or her song then Britney Spears could ask me to stop using that filename. Am I missing something or is that correct?
1. Reproduce - This one is long, see next paragraph.
2. Distribute - downloading is not distributing.
3. Performed - downloading is not performing.
4. Publicly display - downloading is not a public display.
5. Make into a derivative work - downloading is not making a derivative work.
So the only possibility is reproduction. To my knowledge, no law or court case has addressed this specifically so all we have is conjecture. It could be argued that the downloader made a copy. What I think would really be the case is that the downloader requested a copy, but it was the uploader who actually made the copy from his hard drive to his network card. The reason I make the distinction is precisely because copies for copyrighted works are made all the time on a single machine. When I play the Flobot's "Handlebars" a copy goes from my hard drive to memory and at some point has to go through the CPU. So we can't obviously count every single time a copy is made. If we did, then every router that it went through would be held liable for making a copy. So the downloader requests a copy, then the uploader makes a copy, and that is where copyright infringement has occurred.
It's kind of like a guy on the street with a DVD burner and a list of movies he has. He can advertise it all he wants without committing copyright infringement. Then someone comes up to him and asks for one of his movies. He puts a blank disk in the burner, burns the requested movie onto it, and then passes the disk to the requester. The guy on the street committed copyright infringement at the point that he burned the movie onto the disk (reproduced) and handed it to the requester (distributed), but at no point did the requester commit copyright infringement. In the same way, the downloader did not commit copyright infringement.
Note also that you cannot copyright the name of a band: The above question/answer also tells us you cannot copyright the name of a song. Thus, just seeing that someone has Britney-Spears-Oops-I-Did-It-Again.mp3 on their share does not mean that copyright infringement has occurred.
This is one of those times where someone else has to do something in order for what you do to be considered a crime. But advertising availability isn't copyright infringement. You infringe when you distribute. So if no one has downloaded, you haven't distributed, thus you haven't infringed copyright. It's a very dangerous thing to start saying that intent is enough to convict a person of a crime. Intent ought to be considered when a crime has occurred, but to outlaw intent itself sets very bad precedent.
To my knowledge, no one has been sued for downloading a song. Correct me if I'm wrong, but downloading isn't illegal since you aren't infringing the copyright, which is the right to copy and distribute. An argument could be made that in order to download you have to make a copy, but that would be about as effective as arguing that a media player makes a copy from the hard drive to RAM to the CPU in order to play it, and is thus infringement. But, with some of the court decisions being made, who knows, maybe that would fly.
Seriously, some one please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to see the law or a court case which showed otherwise.
You (the copyright holder) distributed the song. How was that copyright infringement?
Maybe with RFID being used the entire trip from maker to deliverer to stock boy to shelf to checkout then they can keep the prices updated better, but until I see it, I doubt my wife or people like her will end up using any less time at the checkout for this reason.
FWIW, I don't have Comcast, but I have seen their advertisements that proclaim unlimited usage. Maybe they don't do that anymore, but they did, and even when they were advertising it, they weren't delivering it. If you advertise something but don't offer it then you're being deceptive. Like I said, it doesn't matter that their actual contract doesn't allow for unlimited usage, their advertisements say they do. So either they do offer it or they don't. Seeing as how we are even having this discussion, we know they don't, so why were/are they advertising it as such in the first place. We've all seen the ads so you show me where they actually offer it. If you can find it, you win the Internet, otherwise, they're liars and should be taken to court.
As for content paying, you must not have any idea how these networks work. Youtube has some provider whom they pay. I have a provider whom I pay, I think it is safe to say that Youtube does not have the same provider that I have, so let's pretend Level 3 links my provider and youtube's provider. In which case, Youtube's provider pays Level 3 and my provider pays Level 3. So once again, all connections have someone who is paying. Where are you getting this idea that content isn't paying for a connection to the Internet?
[1]The content is paying for their connection.
[2]How do you abuse unlimited? If that's what they advertised, then you should get it. Too bad for the ISPs for advertising what they couldn't deliver. It doesn't matter that they didn't expect people to use it, it's irrelevant that their actual contract has vague wording that says they don't offer unlimited service, they advertised it, they should deliver it, otherwise they are being fraudulent and should be taken to court.
[3]And they're lying. You cannot abuse unlimited, so they're lying, unless they don't offer unlimited, in which case, their advertisements are deceptive. In either case, they've lost all trust and no one should care what they say.
I agree with you here. The whole concept of a car-plane is broken at the idea stage. Whether it is more car or more plane is irrelevant.
These three links should get you started:
eBay Sues Craigslist, As Craig And Jim Dilute eBay's Share
Details Come Out On eBay/Craigslist Fight
Craigslist Responds To eBay: I Know You Are, But What Am I?
Which is unfortunate. It's the reason why I still haven't played Bioshock, and probably never will.
I'd like to know their update policy. I bought a house over a year ago. At the time Google Maps showed the land as being just a field, even though it had had streets on it for a while. A few months ago they updated the satellite image but only to the time when the roads were being excavated but before they were paved. However, Street View shows my house after I moved in. I can't figure it out.
I would hate an edit feature. That is what proofreading is for. Once you commit your post that should be it. I can't tell you how many times I've been in forums that allow editing of posts and suddenly I don't know what anyone is talking about simply because I showed up late. One person makes a comment, other people discuss, then that person edits his post to something else.
Not only that, it would be horrible for avoiding the trolls. All they would need to do is get a +5 informative on a post then edit it to be a link to a virus filled site or something else.
Does that mean that everywhere else, Soviet Russia went out with "In Soviet Russia" jokes? And since "In Soviet Russia" jokes have not gone out, does that mean that Soviet Russia has not gone out yet?
You are so right. Get a large enough arena and that would work. Player's wouldn't have quite the control as the broom would give them, but give each player a pressurized air canister and they could move themselves around. Just to increase the look and feel of it, have them ride around on the containers but disguise them as brooms. You could even do the same to the snitch, but have the canister release at random times, in random directions. That way you get a snitch that is hard to catch. Do the same for the bludgers, but give them a bit of AI so that they try to hit the other players.
I absolutely love this idea.
I'm really late to reply to this and I doubt it's going to make a difference, but if you're going to copy and paste this story a million times, at least go to the trouble of making sure it's correct. WTO is the World Trade Organization. The World Health Organization is WHO.
I don't care that the link got it wrong.
Probably so, but it is also natural for humans to eat meat. So either route is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, let's do that shall we?
No, that's why we milk the cows first, then drink the milk. But seriously, who says we are not supposed to? It's not poisonous to us, in general human bodies can tolerate it, and a rather large percentage of mankind for thousands of years enjoys it. What isn't natural about that? It's no more unnatural than taking cereal grains and making flour. Who says we are supposed to be eating the leaves off of plants? Are we supposed to be eating roots?
Who says it's only for a couple of years. I'm pretty sure that is what society dictates. There are people who don't nurse, and there are people who nurse until much later than 3 years old. Yes, it's hard on the mother to do that, and is certainly not necessary, but then, it's not necessary to do it 2-3 years either. In either case, just because our human female mammals produce milk, I don't see that as any reason why drinking another female mammal's milk is wrong.
Again with this supposed to stuff. Who and/or what says what is supposed to happen. We can eat it, our bodies can digest and extract nutrients from it. So why are we supposed to shuck corn, but not crack open a shell? And besides that, I can think of plenty of people (some older than 60) who could climb a tree and grab some eggs. How is that even part of this discussion? Back in our hunting and gathering days, few people even lived to be 50 years old anyway.
Viet people would do it. My wife's parents love the stuff. I had it once with them. It tasted alright, but I did have to get past the idea of it and would probably not do it again because of that reason. However, I also have to force veggies past my gag reflex a lot of times, especially the leafy stuff. I can't stand cooked spinach. The taste is barely tolerable, the sight is disgusting. It looks like raked up leaves left in the gutter for a couple of months.
That has more to do with society than anything else. If I were plopped into a rain forest with nothing but what indigenous people have, I'd probably die within a week. I couldn't do what the people in the African Bush do either. But that has more to do with me never having to learn that stuff. I can and do grow stuff in a garden. The land mass I live on is hardly enough for me to start raising my own cattle, however. And even if it was, I would still find it easier for someone else to do that and I'll just get it at the market. Isn't great that humans are able to specialize like that.
Anybody who can do that is not someone I would want to be making fun of. If someone did that, we would all think him a psychopath, but then, that's why we invented tools to do so. We have guns and whatever it is that the slaughter house uses, while our ancestors had rocks a
It's not anymore a hybrid than an electric car. With an electric car you have a plug that goes into your wall socket and charges its batteries. But what do you do on long trips where you don't want to wait three hours for the batteries to charge? Easy, before you go you rent (or buy) a trailer that is designed specifically to be a generator that you can plug stuff into. The outlet looks just like a wall outlet. It's like bringing the wall with you if you will.
So maybe in the trunk is a bad idea (which I agree with on grounds that if you are going on a long trip, you probably want that trunk space for luggage instead of a generator and 5 gallon tank of gas). So you use the trailer that could have a standard hitch to fit on any car. You buy one or rent it as needed and it will fit your car. Even if they aren't as efficient as a car engine is now, since you are only using it for long trips the reduction in gasoline usage will still be vast.
And since we are putting these on special trailers we can have all the pollution controls built into them. Sure I suppose somebody will just throw a regular generator into a trailer, but if the world went to electric vehicles with gas generators only for long trips, we could handle the small amount of increased pollution from those few who refuse to get the pollution controlled generators.
I read somewhere here on slashdot the solution to the problems many have with long distance drives. Essentially it was have your car be electric, but have a space in the trunk or under the hood or even a small trailer that could hold a generator and a small tank of gas. You just plug the generator directly into your engine and when the batteries start to get low on power, the generator kicks on and charges them back up.
I think it's a brilliant idea. Then when you use your car like you usually do (short drives in town) you don't use any gas. And when you need to go further you can do so. In fact, you don't even need to own the generator. Maybe Hertz or Enterprise could rent them out or something. And if you're going on really long trips, you can get a larger generator.
I just like the idea of an electric vehicle because of the decoupling. Sure we use a lot of coal now, but it's easier to clean up the pollutants when they are in one place then when they are being spewed out every 20 feet on the road. Also, energy companies could change their energy source and drivers wouldn't even know or care. They could switch to geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever, and drivers wouldn't have to spend a dime on their car for it to happen.