I did read the FDA link someone posted. The information there is consistent with your "form matters" context. But regardless, I prefer to avoid the mercury exposure; if someone says that gallium-arsenide is a compound the body ignores, writes a science paper showing that, I am still not inclined not to try it. I don't have that degree:)
I've taken a flu shot once, I caught a mild flu. I can't say I experienced any clear benefit. It's been several years since that occasion and from time to time I come down with a mild flu, sometimes more noticeable and sometimes less. I figure I don't need it. While I wouldn't think I need a polio vaccine If I didn't have one, I admit I'd wish I'd taken one if I contracted the disease. But a flu is much less serious, I just prefer not to take on the mercury. I will admit though, that studying flu vaccine consumption patterns is a good way to study the vaccine acceptance as a social issue.
My point about routines and strategies being related to personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation over patient well-being has to do with a systemic skew of priorities, cost being one such systemic factor, than the process of research into vaccines or medication.
The specific example I have that is the nexus for my concern: Here where I live, amongst families with enough income to afford private health care, the caesarian birth rate is about 80%. Meaning only 20% of women in this cohort give birth through the birth canal. The reason for this "cultural" shift towards a surgery based birth has to do with a cost-benefit analysis of the health industry. The surgery lasts about an hour from start to finish and pays the same as a natural birth which could occupy a hospital room and doctor from 10 to 20 times the amount of time.
Scientific studies show that a major surgery like a caesarian increases the risks and time to recovery of the mother considerably. It should be used when conditions put a life at risk in order to justify this increased risk. In Europe and the US only about 10% to 20% of mothers give birth by caesarian. The issue becomes why? No scientific evidence suggests that women here are less capable. The issue is a doctor doesn't want to lose a weekend at the beach to accompany the labor period of a patient when he can do his job on a friday and have a weekend off. So it's common practice to schedule a caesarian with a mother explaining that her hips are too narrow or that the birth cord is wrapped around the infants neck... regardless of scientific studies or World Health Organization recomendations.
It comes down to a doctor performing his job the way he studied and learned it and what is convenient for him, not necessarily because science has elaborated a method to be better.
What does all this have to do with vaccines and thermosol?
*It costs more to determine whether you're immune to a given disease than it does to simply hit you with a booster for it. Thus they really only do serum studies when doing research into the effectiveness of vaccines.
And it costs more yet to need to reverse a previous assumption to implant a practice that is more suitable. Do they really know what's going on or are they guessing, the fewer times they revise the protocol, the less such a question is asked. If something works why try to fix it? Also, I have no evidence that one area of medicine is inclined to be more devoted to their work than any other.
The term allergy was coined by a pediatrician in 1906 who was working with vaccines at the time. It is based on a latin word used to coin a condition known at the time as serum sickness, a condition some of his patients would exhibit. Metabolically, if I understood the information I gleaned, the serum (vaccine) would cause a biochemical imbalance in the interfacial water (water between the cells) that the body would have to counteract to find a new equilibrium. If the body could not find a new equilibrium death would occur
As I understand it, you are correct. Small doses of mercury does not cause noticeable harm. It's only when the body has accumulated the metal in a quantity surpassing some threshold that it becomes a problem. And it is not used in US vaccines for some time now.
That being said, we only need a few industries that produce consumables like paint or whatnot, even though the quantity of mercury is very low, and cause exposure (in small quantities) and create a future problem. This example (paint used on toys) has recently been addressed in the US.
I'm examining vaccination options here that do not contain mercury.
I think it's important to mention that, to me at least, it's not clear that medical professionals have the patients well-being as a primary point of concern. It seems that many of the routines and strategies are more related to their personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation, or economics before patient well-being. It's for that reason that I seek results from independent studies that support information they may provide me.
As a perfect example, here newborns get eye-drops containing silver-nitrate to prevent more serious eye irritation like those cause by gonorrhea. The eye-drops causes a milder eye irritation in the newborn but still is applied as standard practice even when the mother has blood, urine and stool tests done that indicate that no gonorrhea is present. The decision for the general application of silver nitrate was made because the eye-drops may prevent an eye irritation for a newborn who's mother lives in the Amazons and has neglected her pre-natal exams. Sort of like a preventative measure just in case type thing.
So the attitude is: let's degrade all mothers, regardless of what concerns they may have for their well being or the well being of their child, to the level of an prostitute who works in the Amazon and who got knocked up once to many times and doesn't care whether or not she is ill. Brazil sucks.
On one side you have the entire medical industry that supports the widespread use for the benefit of all at the "cost" of a few.
And on the other side a few who figure they know what's best for themselves and elect to chose.
The push made by the first group is to deny the second group the right to chose because the choices the second group is making is undermining their master plan.
The best possible results would be for the second group to elect participation perhaps with additional attention given to their issues by the first group. But it seems, the issues people may have with vaccines are considered "annoyances" and the push is to steamroll the issue regardless. We need only wait to see if governing bodies support that strategy; the sad part, IMO, is that freedom and liberty are going to be the only casualties of this dispute. Damage inflicted by both sides who cannot seem to handle their freedoms and liberties in a responsible way!
They are all trolls, I tell you, all of them. The medical industry and the anti-vaxxers, and their actions will cost me my right to choose! So maybe they really are all insane.
My issue with vaccines have to do with their quality. Injectable vaccines around where I live contain a preservative based on mercury. Why? Well, it's cheap, we mass produce vaccines and need to keep the price down. Economics.
The general belief is that vaccines help more than they hurt, that being said, for the 5% (or whatever the statistics happen to be) for the patients who have a more violent reaction, their illness was caused by the vaccine, the very thing that everyone believes was supposed to protect them. And if not for that exposure, they would be perfectly healthy. Another side effect. And that's another price to pay for an effective campaign against diseases that doctors work to protect their patients against. How do we reduce that number? Well, further R&N => more expenses... Economics.
So it isn't insane to suggest that we all need to be aware of the quality of vaccine we permit our kids to be exposed to. Certainly my position is not an extremist position like "no vaccines", but I'll be exercising my freedom to chose.
For all you "gentlemen" out there supposing that freedom is a bad thing, you might as well be advocating for more Airport Security, higher population densities in FEMA camps and the outright ban on aluminum foil so that other people who actually think about the issues can't get any for their hats!
I think extremism is the actual "danger factor" with the issue of vaccines or any issue (especially religion).
>> Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.
If you look at the USC 1-201 (4) a bank is "means any person engaged in the business of Banking."
If you understand banking as the holding and trading of notes or other instruments, we are all banks. And since we most often trade notes or instruments that are issued or backed by the Federal Reserve Bank, our banks are technically all subsidiaries of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Has anyone here ever tried exchanging notes or instruments that are of your own creation? Most of you have, though you might not have noticed. I am not talking about mocking something up to appear as something it is not, that is fraud.
The point being, the power a bank has is mostly just our faith that their is something of real value the banks have that we want. The real power is in the ability to reach out and connect with people.
While I am going to be generous with your main points. I would like to point out that your insinuation is that Google does not take action to protect IP of other bit names. I would like to put two points on the table to correct that insinuation as well as present another less bias viewpoint.
1. It's not Googles job to proactively and voluntarily pick up the omis probandi and volunteer resources to screen potentially protected material on behalf of big names. If an agreement between Google and those big names is reached wherein Google agrees to perform some task on their behalf, probably for a fee, then so be it. But until then, protection of ones IP remains the task of whomever is claiming such rights. That is done by the IP claimant declaring infringement and sending a takedown notice to Google, or accessing the Google interface they already have and taking the material down using that tool.
2. I have no evidence to suggest that Google turns a blind eye to takedown notices. Much to the contrary, the issue here being a proactive stance by Google to perform tasks on behalf of the IP holder without their direct participation. How such a pro-active stance get's implemented is a technological issue that will need to be developed. It's safe to say that both Google and IP holders will be involved in the sharing of the initial costs that are associated. But it's likely to be the end consumers who will end up paying. So let's challenge the presumption that Google will be footing the bill by themselves. The total cost estimate we are given is not likely to be paid exclusively by Google. So yes, in part my point does support some of your points regarding imposed expenses that will end up working.
While your environmental analogy does depict an initially reasonable comparison, it is flawed for at least 3 reasons, my points go beyond the scope of the issue with Google, but perhaps can be viewed when considering the issue as a symptom:
1. Environmental abuse has results that are suffered directly by everyone nearby. IP infringement does not, financial damage is felt mostly by IP holder. While IP holders may claim that everyone suffers, but it's their pocketbook that they work to fatten with such claims. Rather then updating their business model to suite the times, they want to impose the outdated business model on everyone even those of us that do respect their IP so that they may "tighten the noose" on everyone so they may catch the few that may actually be infringers. Why can they not find the noose that achieves their objectives without making everyone else pay for their gain? When viewed from this angle, they are doing the equivalent of polluting the environment at the expense of everyone who depends on it. The environment in this case being the free nature of the internet. Why should we permit this internet environment be polluted by bureaucracy, cost or other incumbencies for their gain? Having said all that, I still have hope they can succeed without damaging the "internet" too much.
2. Environmental abuse causes real world problems that can effect people in a physical/bodily way. IP infringement is more a theoretical damage. The value of money is imaginary in nature, it relies on the faith everyone has that there is value. So it can be viewed, that monetary damages are very different from health issues or physical damages. It is this declension of the fundamental difference of what is real and what is imaginary that your argument erroneously presumes.
3. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable, whether in government or in consumerisms or environments whether natural or otherwise. For any reasonable argument to be made regarding piracy, consumer corruption, which is also thievery or the likes, should we not also balance ourselves with an equal push for a reduction in other types of corruption, like bribery or nepotism in government? Why is it that the liberties of people must be stepped on even while there are much much more efficient ways to promote prosperity, even for IP claimants, by examining corruption in governing entities or other institutions?
Perhaps I stand corrected about the band being unwanted at the time of purchase. I elaborate a bit below.
+1 about the FCC giving them a licensing refund but that's wishful thinking.
Licenses don't stipulate an obligation to utilize the wavelengths. In fact when LightSquared picked up this portion of the spectrum (near the GPS spectrum) GPS wasn't such a dominant technology and during the time of the rise of GPS they sat on it. I can provide a link to an article where that was mentioned if anyone cares to read it.
A LightSquared supporter claims GPS technology was "sloppy" and some implementation circuits where left vulnerable to high energy in this neighboring spectrum exactly because LightSquared did nothing with that spectrum for such a long time. They even tried to claim that tests where performed using some of that out of date and/or vulnerable circuits exactly so that they would fail. That was before their bankruptcy of course.
In Brazil, there is corruption at every level. Being part of a union is not optional for "registered" workers, and there is no real correlation between interest of the workers and union actions. In fact, unions are more about showing service and adding to bureaucracy rather then representing the true worker interest. It's not uncommon to hear about alliances formed between politicians and unions.
To make it easier to swallow, firms are responsible for paying the obligatory fee for each worker and it's spun to the worker as a benefit alongside health coverage and other sweeteners firms offer their workers. But unlike the sweeteners or the extra health coverage, workers can't opt out of that.
In brazil workers unions normally plan strikes annually. About 2 months ago the police force that reacts to emergency calls when on strike because they wanted a pay increase; crime skyrocketed. The standoff between the governor of the state Bahia (a state in the north eastern region) held his ground in not granting a pay increase. The result was that the police force on strike held their grounds until the last day that their action would be construed as an abandonment of their public obligations. (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.terra.com.br%2Fbrasil%2Fnoticias%2F0%2C%2COI5597144-EI5030%2C00-BA%2Bgreve%2Bda%2BPolicia%2BMilitar%2Bprejudica%2Binicio%2Bdo%2Bano%2Bletivo.html&act=url)
Banks go on strike at least once a year, truck drivers who deliver gasoline when on strike to protest city decisions about when roads could be used by trucks. While Foxconn is threatening a strike, it's organized by the workers union because it seems the factory is overcrowded... You can read the translation of the local media here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftechguru.com.br%2Ffoxconn-de-jundiai-pode-entrar-em-greve-na-semana-que-vem%2F).
The typical mentality of trying to run a factory at 110% capacity to maximize profits...
I don't mean to say Americans are insensitive to racism; much to the contrary, it's a very hot topic. Furthermore sensitivity / insensitivity can be considered to be a continuum. Just because American as becoming more desensitized doesn't mean they aren't still sensitive.
Perhaps an interesting additional observation to make is how sensationalism is getting more and more extreme, perhaps as a result of desensitization and the continuing need for journalist to "touch" their audience. You example does fit this thesis quite well.
I suppose screaming headlines occur when the business of spreading news becomes competitive. Ever been in a party that starts out ok and before long everyone is screaming just to be heard. Maybe the news industry experiences a similar "I don't want to be drowned out in the static" type experience that causes escalation...
Then there is escalation of policies in general. Today it's crackdowns on journalism, but maybe tomorrow that moves on to bloggers or forum comments. Then the next thing you know you are required to buy a TV set that has a camera and a microphone build in to "monitor" your viewing preferences.
I still don't know whether state "in your face" is better then state "secretly watching". And anyone here who denies the US doesn't watch their citizens should read up on the latest about wiretapping and eavesdropping the internet and phone networks in the latest terrorism search.
That being said, I'm American, I prefer my preferences to be in line with my country and environment; in this case, I'm just not sure what's better. Sounds like things can get very bad very fast around here. I just don't know why or when or even if.
The Chinese way creates an "in-your-face" state censorship issue. It's like they are always "cracking down" on journalists when they create unwanted rumors.
The US relies on corporate crackdowns (journalists losing their job) instead of the direct interference approach the Chinese use when a journalist publishes something out of line.
What do you think is the better of the two? I can't tell.
It's interesting how much more important the Chinese think rumors are. It's as though they want definitive information in circulation (where definitive herein means accepted/state sponsored). As though the population seeks rumors and gives them more importance.
That differs from how the US handles rumors by creating other news that may contradict, obscure and drown out rumors. Americans have been desensitized to "sensationalist" type journalism whereas in China they seem to still react to it.
The Chinese want a clear message or signal where as the US is more then happy to jam a message or signal. Both seem like good ways to control the populations by media but certainly culturally oriented to each country.
Personally, I would rather have not been desensitized as much. I certainly dislike state control more than desensitization though.
Great. Doesn't that sounds like an American stereotype? second servings and all? No offense to any other American readers here; it's idiots like this poster who brings shame to the rest of us, especially when we travel overseas; most of us still care about how the rest of the world may perceive us. That "We've got the nukes and we'll use'm 'cause we're all riled up" or "We'll save the world!" attitude just makes me _sick_.
Pigs and Apes? How would I presume to know what Iranians believe? Are you referring to the underlying common psychological condition known as egoism when you claim:... so clearly they think they're better then them... right? How is it that you became such an expert in the Iranian belief system anyway? By chance are you also fluent in Persian or Arabic or whatever they speak there to offer a translations like that? Strike that, a bilingual American? Ha! Like that is going to happen (except for someone who "crossed the border") so, where are your citations? Did you fall asleep in Anthropology 101 when the professor was lecturing about Darwin? Is that your excuse?
As to your statement that I believe I'm...
Did I actually make any statements? Except that you should smoke more of that stuff, and that you are politically naive or confused? Anything more to say?
Since you made such statements about yourself in your entire posting, about your default settings, your superiority levels and your values, I rest my case. I don't care about retarded Americans or the Iranians or what their government does with the internet anyway.
He seems to have gotten you quite riled up. You seem very anti-Iranian; do you feel that makes you more pro-American. Do you even know what the values of America are?
I'm just saying you treat them like what they are and always will be
Do you even know what you are saying? If your argument is based on you feeling you are better then anyone else, go ahead and smoke some more of whatever it is in that pipe.
If you mean to say you can identify "free" states when you see one because feel you can identify ducks when they walk in front of you. <hand out hold star/> Congratulations, you can now join all the others who have discovered that they can affirm that shit actually stinks.
...naive belief that psychopathic messianic dictatorships can be reformed...
You can't even get your own ideas straight, much less what someone in the UN might have as ideas. You are politically naive or confused? Try watching some out of state propaganda like BBC, maybe that will help.
As a final thought and actual reason for my post.
Does a retard know he is a retard? Really? Think about it for a sec.
Slashdot Mirror
I did read the FDA link someone posted. The information there is consistent with your "form matters" context. But regardless, I prefer to avoid the mercury exposure; if someone says that gallium-arsenide is a compound the body ignores, writes a science paper showing that, I am still not inclined not to try it. I don't have that degree :)
I've taken a flu shot once, I caught a mild flu. I can't say I experienced any clear benefit. It's been several years since that occasion and from time to time I come down with a mild flu, sometimes more noticeable and sometimes less. I figure I don't need it. While I wouldn't think I need a polio vaccine If I didn't have one, I admit I'd wish I'd taken one if I contracted the disease. But a flu is much less serious, I just prefer not to take on the mercury. I will admit though, that studying flu vaccine consumption patterns is a good way to study the vaccine acceptance as a social issue.
My point about routines and strategies being related to personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation over patient well-being has to do with a systemic skew of priorities, cost being one such systemic factor, than the process of research into vaccines or medication.
The specific example I have that is the nexus for my concern: Here where I live, amongst families with enough income to afford private health care, the caesarian birth rate is about 80%. Meaning only 20% of women in this cohort give birth through the birth canal. The reason for this "cultural" shift towards a surgery based birth has to do with a cost-benefit analysis of the health industry. The surgery lasts about an hour from start to finish and pays the same as a natural birth which could occupy a hospital room and doctor from 10 to 20 times the amount of time.
Scientific studies show that a major surgery like a caesarian increases the risks and time to recovery of the mother considerably. It should be used when conditions put a life at risk in order to justify this increased risk. In Europe and the US only about 10% to 20% of mothers give birth by caesarian. The issue becomes why? No scientific evidence suggests that women here are less capable. The issue is a doctor doesn't want to lose a weekend at the beach to accompany the labor period of a patient when he can do his job on a friday and have a weekend off. So it's common practice to schedule a caesarian with a mother explaining that her hips are too narrow or that the birth cord is wrapped around the infants neck... regardless of scientific studies or World Health Organization recomendations.
It comes down to a doctor performing his job the way he studied and learned it and what is convenient for him, not necessarily because science has elaborated a method to be better.
What does all this have to do with vaccines and thermosol?
*It costs more to determine whether you're immune to a given disease than it does to simply hit you with a booster for it. Thus they really only do serum studies when doing research into the effectiveness of vaccines.
And it costs more yet to need to reverse a previous assumption to implant a practice that is more suitable. Do they really know what's going on or are they guessing, the fewer times they revise the protocol, the less such a question is asked. If something works why try to fix it? Also, I have no evidence that one area of medicine is inclined to be more devoted to their work than any other.
The term allergy was coined by a pediatrician in 1906 who was working with vaccines at the time. It is based on a latin word used to coin a condition known at the time as serum sickness, a condition some of his patients would exhibit. Metabolically, if I understood the information I gleaned, the serum (vaccine) would cause a biochemical imbalance in the interfacial water (water between the cells) that the body would have to counteract to find a new equilibrium. If the body could not find a new equilibrium death would occur
oh dear
Thanks for the links.
Brazil.
As I understand it, you are correct. Small doses of mercury does not cause noticeable harm. It's only when the body has accumulated the metal in a quantity surpassing some threshold that it becomes a problem. And it is not used in US vaccines for some time now.
That being said, we only need a few industries that produce consumables like paint or whatnot, even though the quantity of mercury is very low, and cause exposure (in small quantities) and create a future problem. This example (paint used on toys) has recently been addressed in the US.
I'm examining vaccination options here that do not contain mercury.
I think it's important to mention that, to me at least, it's not clear that medical professionals have the patients well-being as a primary point of concern. It seems that many of the routines and strategies are more related to their personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation, or economics before patient well-being. It's for that reason that I seek results from independent studies that support information they may provide me.
As a perfect example, here newborns get eye-drops containing silver-nitrate to prevent more serious eye irritation like those cause by gonorrhea. The eye-drops causes a milder eye irritation in the newborn but still is applied as standard practice even when the mother has blood, urine and stool tests done that indicate that no gonorrhea is present. The decision for the general application of silver nitrate was made because the eye-drops may prevent an eye irritation for a newborn who's mother lives in the Amazons and has neglected her pre-natal exams. Sort of like a preventative measure just in case type thing.
So the attitude is: let's degrade all mothers, regardless of what concerns they may have for their well being or the well being of their child, to the level of an prostitute who works in the Amazon and who got knocked up once to many times and doesn't care whether or not she is ill. Brazil sucks.
Vaccines are a controversial issue.
On one side you have the entire medical industry that supports the widespread use for the benefit of all at the "cost" of a few.
And on the other side a few who figure they know what's best for themselves and elect to chose.
The push made by the first group is to deny the second group the right to chose because the choices the second group is making is undermining their master plan.
The best possible results would be for the second group to elect participation perhaps with additional attention given to their issues by the first group. But it seems, the issues people may have with vaccines are considered "annoyances" and the push is to steamroll the issue regardless. We need only wait to see if governing bodies support that strategy; the sad part, IMO, is that freedom and liberty are going to be the only casualties of this dispute. Damage inflicted by both sides who cannot seem to handle their freedoms and liberties in a responsible way!
They are all trolls, I tell you, all of them. The medical industry and the anti-vaxxers, and their actions will cost me my right to choose! So maybe they really are all insane.
Insanity is in the eye of the beholder.
My issue with vaccines have to do with their quality. Injectable vaccines around where I live contain a preservative based on mercury. Why? Well, it's cheap, we mass produce vaccines and need to keep the price down. Economics.
The general belief is that vaccines help more than they hurt, that being said, for the 5% (or whatever the statistics happen to be) for the patients who have a more violent reaction, their illness was caused by the vaccine, the very thing that everyone believes was supposed to protect them. And if not for that exposure, they would be perfectly healthy. Another side effect. And that's another price to pay for an effective campaign against diseases that doctors work to protect their patients against. How do we reduce that number? Well, further R&N => more expenses... Economics.
So it isn't insane to suggest that we all need to be aware of the quality of vaccine we permit our kids to be exposed to. Certainly my position is not an extremist position like "no vaccines", but I'll be exercising my freedom to chose.
For all you "gentlemen" out there supposing that freedom is a bad thing, you might as well be advocating for more Airport Security, higher population densities in FEMA camps and the outright ban on aluminum foil so that other people who actually think about the issues can't get any for their hats!
I think extremism is the actual "danger factor" with the issue of vaccines or any issue (especially religion).
>> Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.
If you look at the USC 1-201 (4) a bank is "means any person engaged in the business of Banking."
If you understand banking as the holding and trading of notes or other instruments, we are all banks. And since we most often trade notes or instruments that are issued or backed by the Federal Reserve Bank, our banks are technically all subsidiaries of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Has anyone here ever tried exchanging notes or instruments that are of your own creation? Most of you have, though you might not have noticed. I am not talking about mocking something up to appear as something it is not, that is fraud.
The point being, the power a bank has is mostly just our faith that their is something of real value the banks have that we want. The real power is in the ability to reach out and connect with people.
Everyone PANIC!
Corrections:
paragraph 1. other bit names => other big names
While I am going to be generous with your main points. I would like to point out that your insinuation is that Google does not take action to protect IP of other bit names. I would like to put two points on the table to correct that insinuation as well as present another less bias viewpoint.
1. It's not Googles job to proactively and voluntarily pick up the omis probandi and volunteer resources to screen potentially protected material on behalf of big names. If an agreement between Google and those big names is reached wherein Google agrees to perform some task on their behalf, probably for a fee, then so be it. But until then, protection of ones IP remains the task of whomever is claiming such rights. That is done by the IP claimant declaring infringement and sending a takedown notice to Google, or accessing the Google interface they already have and taking the material down using that tool.
2. I have no evidence to suggest that Google turns a blind eye to takedown notices. Much to the contrary, the issue here being a proactive stance by Google to perform tasks on behalf of the IP holder without their direct participation. How such a pro-active stance get's implemented is a technological issue that will need to be developed. It's safe to say that both Google and IP holders will be involved in the sharing of the initial costs that are associated. But it's likely to be the end consumers who will end up paying. So let's challenge the presumption that Google will be footing the bill by themselves. The total cost estimate we are given is not likely to be paid exclusively by Google. So yes, in part my point does support some of your points regarding imposed expenses that will end up working.
While your environmental analogy does depict an initially reasonable comparison, it is flawed for at least 3 reasons, my points go beyond the scope of the issue with Google, but perhaps can be viewed when considering the issue as a symptom:
1. Environmental abuse has results that are suffered directly by everyone nearby. IP infringement does not, financial damage is felt mostly by IP holder. While IP holders may claim that everyone suffers, but it's their pocketbook that they work to fatten with such claims. Rather then updating their business model to suite the times, they want to impose the outdated business model on everyone even those of us that do respect their IP so that they may "tighten the noose" on everyone so they may catch the few that may actually be infringers. Why can they not find the noose that achieves their objectives without making everyone else pay for their gain? When viewed from this angle, they are doing the equivalent of polluting the environment at the expense of everyone who depends on it. The environment in this case being the free nature of the internet. Why should we permit this internet environment be polluted by bureaucracy, cost or other incumbencies for their gain? Having said all that, I still have hope they can succeed without damaging the "internet" too much.
2. Environmental abuse causes real world problems that can effect people in a physical/bodily way. IP infringement is more a theoretical damage. The value of money is imaginary in nature, it relies on the faith everyone has that there is value. So it can be viewed, that monetary damages are very different from health issues or physical damages. It is this declension of the fundamental difference of what is real and what is imaginary that your argument erroneously presumes.
3. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable, whether in government or in consumerisms or environments whether natural or otherwise. For any reasonable argument to be made regarding piracy, consumer corruption, which is also thievery or the likes, should we not also balance ourselves with an equal push for a reduction in other types of corruption, like bribery or nepotism in government? Why is it that the liberties of people must be stepped on even while there are much much more efficient ways to promote prosperity, even for IP claimants, by examining corruption in governing entities or other institutions?
I didn't read TFA.
Perhaps I stand corrected about the band being unwanted at the time of purchase. I elaborate a bit below.
+1 about the FCC giving them a licensing refund but that's wishful thinking.
Licenses don't stipulate an obligation to utilize the wavelengths. In fact when LightSquared picked up this portion of the spectrum (near the GPS spectrum) GPS wasn't such a dominant technology and during the time of the rise of GPS they sat on it. I can provide a link to an article where that was mentioned if anyone cares to read it.
A LightSquared supporter claims GPS technology was "sloppy" and some implementation circuits where left vulnerable to high energy in this neighboring spectrum exactly because LightSquared did nothing with that spectrum for such a long time. They even tried to claim that tests where performed using some of that out of date and/or vulnerable circuits exactly so that they would fail. That was before their bankruptcy of course.
The spectrum they bought was probably dirt cheap. No way to make a profit with spectrum that is more in demand.
Dirt cheap because nobody else would touch it (for good reason).
Strike that.
In Brazil, there is corruption at every level. Being part of a union is not optional for "registered" workers, and there is no real correlation between interest of the workers and union actions. In fact, unions are more about showing service and adding to bureaucracy rather then representing the true worker interest. It's not uncommon to hear about alliances formed between politicians and unions.
To make it easier to swallow, firms are responsible for paying the obligatory fee for each worker and it's spun to the worker as a benefit alongside health coverage and other sweeteners firms offer their workers. But unlike the sweeteners or the extra health coverage, workers can't opt out of that.
In brazil workers unions normally plan strikes annually. About 2 months ago the police force that reacts to emergency calls when on strike because they wanted a pay increase; crime skyrocketed. The standoff between the governor of the state Bahia (a state in the north eastern region) held his ground in not granting a pay increase. The result was that the police force on strike held their grounds until the last day that their action would be construed as an abandonment of their public obligations. (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnoticias.terra.com.br%2Fbrasil%2Fnoticias%2F0%2C%2COI5597144-EI5030%2C00-BA%2Bgreve%2Bda%2BPolicia%2BMilitar%2Bprejudica%2Binicio%2Bdo%2Bano%2Bletivo.html&act=url)
Banks go on strike at least once a year, truck drivers who deliver gasoline when on strike to protest city decisions about when roads could be used by trucks. While Foxconn is threatening a strike, it's organized by the workers union because it seems the factory is overcrowded... You can read the translation of the local media here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftechguru.com.br%2Ffoxconn-de-jundiai-pode-entrar-em-greve-na-semana-que-vem%2F).
The typical mentality of trying to run a factory at 110% capacity to maximize profits...
I don't mean to say Americans are insensitive to racism; much to the contrary, it's a very hot topic. Furthermore sensitivity / insensitivity can be considered to be a continuum. Just because American as becoming more desensitized doesn't mean they aren't still sensitive.
Perhaps an interesting additional observation to make is how sensationalism is getting more and more extreme, perhaps as a result of desensitization and the continuing need for journalist to "touch" their audience. You example does fit this thesis quite well.
Well, do you think that's the problem?
I suppose screaming headlines occur when the business of spreading news becomes competitive. Ever been in a party that starts out ok and before long everyone is screaming just to be heard. Maybe the news industry experiences a similar "I don't want to be drowned out in the static" type experience that causes escalation...
Then there is escalation of policies in general. Today it's crackdowns on journalism, but maybe tomorrow that moves on to bloggers or forum comments. Then the next thing you know you are required to buy a TV set that has a camera and a microphone build in to "monitor" your viewing preferences.
I still don't know whether state "in your face" is better then state "secretly watching". And anyone here who denies the US doesn't watch their citizens should read up on the latest about wiretapping and eavesdropping the internet and phone networks in the latest terrorism search.
That being said, I'm American, I prefer my preferences to be in line with my country and environment; in this case, I'm just not sure what's better. Sounds like things can get very bad very fast around here. I just don't know why or when or even if.
The Chinese way creates an "in-your-face" state censorship issue. It's like they are always "cracking down" on journalists when they create unwanted rumors.
The US relies on corporate crackdowns (journalists losing their job) instead of the direct interference approach the Chinese use when a journalist publishes something out of line.
What do you think is the better of the two? I can't tell.
They still have to deal with Jetlag and 12 + hours of airplane noise plus the requirement to going through TSA checks in their socks.
I didn't think about the drawbacks until you mentioned them. Thanks.
It's interesting how much more important the Chinese think rumors are. It's as though they want definitive information in circulation (where definitive herein means accepted/state sponsored). As though the population seeks rumors and gives them more importance.
That differs from how the US handles rumors by creating other news that may contradict, obscure and drown out rumors. Americans have been desensitized to "sensationalist" type journalism whereas in China they seem to still react to it.
The Chinese want a clear message or signal where as the US is more then happy to jam a message or signal. Both seem like good ways to control the populations by media but certainly culturally oriented to each country.
Personally, I would rather have not been desensitized as much. I certainly dislike state control more than desensitization though.
I would be cheaper to telecommute anyway. What's wrong with a video conference call?
Great. Doesn't that sounds like an American stereotype? second servings and all? No offense to any other American readers here; it's idiots like this poster who brings shame to the rest of us, especially when we travel overseas; most of us still care about how the rest of the world may perceive us. That "We've got the nukes and we'll use'm 'cause we're all riled up" or "We'll save the world!" attitude just makes me _sick_.
Pigs and Apes? How would I presume to know what Iranians believe? Are you referring to the underlying common psychological condition known as egoism when you claim: ... so clearly they think they're better then them... right? How is it that you became such an expert in the Iranian belief system anyway? By chance are you also fluent in Persian or Arabic or whatever they speak there to offer a translations like that? Strike that, a bilingual American? Ha! Like that is going to happen (except for someone who "crossed the border") so, where are your citations? Did you fall asleep in Anthropology 101 when the professor was lecturing about Darwin? Is that your excuse?
As to your statement that I believe I'm...
Did I actually make any statements? Except that you should smoke more of that stuff, and that you are politically naive or confused? Anything more to say?
Since you made such statements about yourself in your entire posting, about your default settings, your superiority levels and your values, I rest my case. I don't care about retarded Americans or the Iranians or what their government does with the internet anyway.
Well, that depends of if it's the intelligence community using the feature, or if it's anonymous.
He seems to have gotten you quite riled up. You seem very anti-Iranian; do you feel that makes you more pro-American. Do you even know what the values of America are?
I'm just saying you treat them like what they are and always will be
Do you even know what you are saying? If your argument is based on you feeling you are better then anyone else, go ahead and smoke some more of whatever it is in that pipe.
If you mean to say you can identify "free" states when you see one because feel you can identify ducks when they walk in front of you. <hand out hold star/> Congratulations, you can now join all the others who have discovered that they can affirm that shit actually stinks.
...naive belief that psychopathic messianic dictatorships can be reformed...
You can't even get your own ideas straight, much less what someone in the UN might have as ideas. You are politically naive or confused? Try watching some out of state propaganda like BBC, maybe that will help.
As a final thought and actual reason for my post.
Does a retard know he is a retard? Really? Think about it for a sec.
RIAA and those other guys can now lobby for something similar to protect the IP.
Wait, they already have the next best thing; laws (state sponsorship) requiring ISP's to sensor "the internet" on their behalf.
Well, it will help navigate, how dangerous can that be?
You will be assimilated by the Borg. Resistance is futile.