If you stress out people enough they will kill themselves. People with mental illnesses and autistic disorders have a much lower threshold. Do you think the mentally ill just by pure coincidence 'choose' to commit suicide or perhaps there is a cause and effect going on. Why are people with certain genetic mutations more likely to kill themselves if stressed? If it's just 'choice' we should not expect to find such a correspondence. The evidence implies that something else is going on - faulty neruons/neuro networks. That's why it's called an 'ILLNESS'.
You point "without actually being malicious about it" shows that people with Asperger's often live in their own little world. We can't judge them on everyone else's terms.
By the way, I get that they are annoying. but they are autistic - faulty brain wiring. No need to get so judgmental.
It's often the case that the most stringent standard is applied against the individual. So you can be prosecuted for being a breaking US federal law while being outside the USA and not a citizen of the USA and yet not have a say in what the law is in the USA. Then you get denied the benefit of the law in the USA - eg posting so called hate speech on the USA server while in the UK.
If the basis of law is consent of the governed and one who is governed never has a chance to give their consent it makes the whole concept of the 'rule of law' a farce. (I think if you are being extradited ot the USA for a crime not committed in the USA you should be able to vote while awaiting trial and given all the rights of a citizen.)
And of course if you are foreigner trying to visit the USA, then you can be treated like shit and deported. No right to work - crap all. So when the government wants to treat you like someone who belongs in the USA they can and when they want to treat you like an alien they can.
You also have to ask by what right does country x have to prosecute person 'a' for an action taken in country y. The person was not in the jurisdiction of country x when the crime was committed.
Er given that Aspergers is a form of autism thus making it inappropriate to extradite him, it actually has a lot to do with the issue. Have you ever met anyone on the autistic spectrum?
If you don't live in the USA you hardly stand much a chance of getting fair trial if you are extradited. Firstly you need money for a private attorney if you want a real shot at a fair trial (public defenders are a joke most of the time; innocent people go to jail all the time - just look at he innocence project). And you are not allowed to work while you are awaiting trail in the USA further guaranteeing you getting screwed over. You are not familiar with the legal system - again another nail in the coffin of obtaining a fair trial. And consider that you don't know anyone to turn to for advice. And then you have to consider cultural factors - a jury in the USA is going to be less sympathetic to a foreigner.
Of course in this case its even worse - what he did would be a lesser crime in the UK. Why someone should subject to a foreign countries laws while doing something that is not in that foreign county amazes me. We don't give foreigners the vote so why should they be subject to our laws when not in our country. Let him be subject to British laws and let the British system deal with him (ie for his hacking).
He also has Asperger's Syndrome and this form of autism could really be a stress factor leading to suicude. A trial in a foreign country is no small deal. The whole thing stinks.
I love it that 'the obey the law no matter what' types go on and on about not pirating software and not infringing on copyright but when it's a big large corporation not giving you a refund, its different. When they short change you - very mysteriously its 'not stealing'. How very magical! I call it the 'Powerful corporations can never steal law'. How about we apply the same draconian penalties that we apply to copyright infringes to companies who don't issue refunds when the end users reject the UELA. How about we send them to jail as well?
Maybe as well if they claim that the cost of Windows XP is only $6 they need to show some evidence that they actually only paid $6 for it!
BTW the restocking fee is bulls###. They don't need to physically get back anything from you. They just invalidate the license. Besides here is quote from the EULA. Its says nothing about a restocking fee. "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."
If we are going to talk about everyone paying their own 'fair' share then consider:
1. For every $1 spent on kids and students, $10 is spent on retirees by the government. So lets cut social security and medicare and make sure everyone pays their pays fair share. 2. I spent 3 years working for free part time in a lab as an undergrad. I published 1 paper and might soon see a second one published. Well how about I get my 'fair share'. If a municipality wants to tax me on my tuition then how about all the local, state and federal government pay its fair share for my lab work that is benefiting everyone. I'll take $2000 a paper and minimum wage for the hours I put in. That's their 'fair share' to me. 3. So since now we are going to be paying our own 'fair share' then all students paying this tax should be able to drink alcohol - cause we are all paying our own fair share. 4. And undergrads normally get paid $7-$9 an hour so that better go up by at least 50% now that everyone is paying their own 'fair share'. 5. And all those older people should also have to sign up for the draft (or national service) cause we all need to pay our own fair share. 6. I'd like to vote where I go to college even if I am technically a non resident now I am going to pay my own 'fair share'. 7. And the municipality should pay for the university police, roads and garbage cause we are all paying out own fair share. (well said Smallpond) 8. And that includes changing zoning requirements for college towns to have more rowdy bars and strip clubs now that we will be paying our own 'fair share'. 9. Don't expect any more volunteer work done by students in their local community now that they are all paying their own 'fair share'. 10. The per capita subsidy given to students has been falling in real terms. The university of California just voted to raise tuition by 32%. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20tuition.html?_r=1&hp] This imbecile of a mayor does not seem to get it that students are getting WAY LESS than their 'fair share' already.
Does this complete dick of a mayor not get it that when you get a college education it doesn't just pay dividends to you but to the whole society. You end up paying more taxes, being more productive, you are much more likely to innovate, you actually might create new jobs and you are much less likely to commit crime or be antisocial. Oh and you also might end up being useful to national security - I personally know projects that are being done for the DOD that are of critical importance. The list goes on and on. If people in America don't appreciate the huge importance of education we wont be a super power for much longer.
I am not interested in conspiracy theories, I just want to know the UK is freaken draconian when it comes to copyright. This despite the fact that there is lots of evidence that the increased terms for copyright and increased stringencies ae actually harmful. Also don't they also realize that they are potentially criminalizing a whole generation? It seems that they keep on wanting to extend copyright forever and would be quite happy if people were still paying copyright fees for the beetles in the 22nd century. Seriously I don't get it!
I have to agree with you on income tax being fairer. Sales tax is utterly evil - its regressive. Why should someone earning $8 an hour pay the same tax when he/she buys something as someone earning $100 an hour? It is seriously f*cked up! On top of that sales taxes keep on climbing everywhere in the USA. But states are far more reticent to raise income or capital gains taxes. The injustice is made worse by the fact that he USA has such a high Gini coefficient.
Even in liberal states the legislature doenst seem to get it. Massachetts a few months ago raised its sales tax from 5% to 6.25% and let towns add another 0.75% making it a potenital total of 7%. Then every year Mass taxes the ownership of cars at 2.5%. So when you buy a new car you are looking at an 8.75% (6.25% sales tax + 2.5% property tax) tax rate (on top of local sales taxes) for the first year. But their income tax is a flat rate of 5.3%. So it's screw you if your poor and let you off easier if your rich.
So I love it when places like Amazon don't collect sales tax. It's f*cking unjust to begin with. Not paying tax on internet sales just levels the playing field.
One other anecdote. Before 1991, Connecticut had a highly progressive income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%. Under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, this was changed to a tax on employment and investment income with an equal maximum rate of 4%. Now they have 2 tax bands of 3% and 5%. So it used to be rich people living of their investments paid taxes big time, now they go after the little people and screw them over. Oh and Connecticut still has a sales tax of 6% as well.
I hear this theory a lot - that despite the fact that no other country in the world has figured out how to use the free market to provide health care for all - somehow we could, if only the government was not in the way. OK well how about this? Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?
By the way if you are earning $8 how are you going to afford health care without government help under any system?
When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient, without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.
It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.
Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.
And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????
The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.
We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives. So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power. The problem is that the greenies block everything. They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy. Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL And then the greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain. They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality. Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us. I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use.
She's got a 2.7 GPA. That isn't outstanding, that's average. That isn't hard work, that's showing up to class and doing what you're told. I'd accept that she'd worked hard if she walked out of there with a 3.0+ GPA. A 2.7? Nope.
Because by definition about half the students at any given college score below average does that mean they are unworthy for a job? This whole below average thing is like musical chairs. The bottom half will always be there. To dismiss them is to pretend that somehow everyone could be above average if they worked hard enough.
I support the student's claim. College tuition has gone up way ahead of inflation+ average earnings. Yet the product that is produced is less likely to get someone a job. And lets not forget most colleges are not for profits. So aren't they in the business of doing something charitable (other than lining their own chancellors pockets)? Well it's time these institutions were held accountable.
Welcome to the real world. No, it isn't fair. Nothing is. Fairness is an artificial construct. In the real world nobody is going to give you a job just to be fair. You've got to earn your keep, just like everyone else out there.
Funny that cause we talk about "fair" in taxes and use that to stop politicians raising them on the middle class. And it's funny cause "fair" is used to justify compensation in in civil and criminal damages. And let's not forget that its because of "fairness" that we have such strict IP laws - especially to rich 60s pop stars. And what about "fair" to companies objecting to unions? But then again we seem to only care about "fairness" for those of high social economic status. The jobless, the poor, the uninsured - for them fair doesn't apply.
I wish someone would explain to me how and why the IP industry is powerful in the UK. There are so many industries that the UK government doesn't seem to care about. The don't spend much as a percentage of GDP on research in science of technology. They seem to hate economic development. Try building any kind of high tech manufacturing. Either they will say flat out no or burden you with red tape so much that you will just have to give up. It's sad because the education in the UK has improved tremendously over the last 20 years but all that talent is wasted. (See here for more details - http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34111_39352401_1_1_1_37443,00.html )
The question gets more poignant though when you think that political party financing is a lot more regulated that in the USA. Lobbying in politics has never been quite what it is the USA either. Government ministers get ideas and go with them sometimes no matter how crazy they are. But normally they are ideological - the poll tax, child welfare, spying on people, high taxes, etc. So the question comes up again - why the f*** are they so gung ho about IP?
> We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning. What you try to do is *reduce* the carbon output. And not consuming energy is the best for that. And the quickest.
With an attitude of not consuming energy you get a nihilistic attitude to everything. That is guaranteed to hit the economy. It also means that doing just about anything is soaked in guilt because it probably consumes energy. Not a healthy way to approach life at all.
I also dispute the fact that nothing can be zero carbon. Once we transition to electric vehicles then transportation can be zero carbon. We can similarly substitute the heat from non carbon sources in creating manufacturing products.
There is talk about heavily taxing the airline industry to bring down the number of miles flown.
There seems to be no middle ground. Either its denial of global warming or banning major economic and social activity in the name of the environment.
Of course we can solve the problem. We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power. Instead the greenies on Europe want to guilt anyone who uses energy. In the end all that does is to depress the economy, raise unemployment and lower standards of living.
The irony is that we cannot address global warming BECAUSE of the opposition to environmentalists. Indeed if we are to use electric cars we are going to need many more (non carbon emitting) power stations which the experimentalists fight against tooth and nail.
And then I am always amazed by how so many people seem to forge that China is the number one emitter now and that India will soon be number two. If you cannot get these countries on board you are wasting your time. So while the EU impoverishes itself trying to reduce its carbon emissions by 1% China happily adds 10 times that every year anyway.
I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws when at this level there is plenty of evidence that they are having a deleterious economic impact. Even in countries in Europe where campaign contributions are not influential as in the USA. It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.
The number one reason I don't buy apple products is because they are a ripoff. NOT WORTH IT. Even for high end stuff I can normally get the equivalent product more cheaply. Sometimes the price difference is a mere 15%, sometimes its 30% and sometimes apple charges more than double for an equivalent product.
Secondly Apple is much more likely to make their own products obsolete. For example I know a few cases where people could not upgrade ram for their 3.5 year old laptops in an apple store because apple no longer sold compatible ram.
As far as I am concerned the real reason people go for apple is because 'its cool' and because their products are physically attractive. It gets scary because people who buy apple products treat the whole thing like a religion. There is no giving them rational arguments.
And I don't buy the whole operating system stability argument. If you need a stable OS that badly - use Linux.
I can think of one genuine method that could be tried. If you react Sodium metal with water you get hydrogen.
2 Na + 2 H2O > 2 NaOH + H2
You then react: 4H2 + 2 O2 --> 4 H2O
This would need the safe and contained sodium reaction which is not so simple. It would require production of pure sodium which is energy intensive. You would need to 'fill up' your car with sodium every so often.
So it's not 100% true that the car runs on just water. It also runs on sodium. This concept applies to other metals that will produce lots of hydrogen. The process will also produce lots of very strong basic solution which will require careful handling for safety reasons.
This is an example of the kind of morons that we decide to be legislators. Of course its unenforceable. Its a law that only a pure doofus could have made up. The better question is how is it we elect these people who are so out of reality. This guy reminds me of Jim Inhofe the senior Republican Senator for Oklahoma. Some of his ideas are also shocking. I think we need some kind of standardized test before people get to be legislators.
This is a perfect example of using the copyright law to forbid something that has nothing to do with the reason copyright was created. It's not as though creativity will be suppressed as a consequence. It's also an example of corporate lobbying for a law designed by and for a specific corporation. It stinks of corruption. The law is for the NFL not the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. We need IP reform and this is where it should begin.
Why do I smell the the evil odor of Microsoft at work? The battle is over. The only company who has an interest in continuing it given that Blu-ray will almost certainly dominate is Microsoft. I would love to know what they are up to behind the scenes.
This is a classic case of distorting what IP really is. They do have a Trademark on various aspects of the vehicle. They do not own these aspects. We merely allow them to monopolize the use of these symbols because we believe that it is essential for commerce. Without this justifcation it would be wrong to allow just one corporation to have a monoply on the use of an image. So we need to look if this justifcation applies.
We need to look at this situation and ask it it would be essential for commerce for Ford to restrict the use of the Trademarks on the proposed calendars. Given that the calendar is quite complimentary of the vehicles and that the owners group is not trying to create a new car or distort the image of the car there is no reason for us to allow a monopolization of the use of the trademarked images in this situation.
Here the restrictions that we place on everyone but Ford are not appropriate. We need a Trademark law that allows some reasonable use of Trademarks without the owners permission such as in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
If you stress out people enough they will kill themselves. People with mental illnesses and autistic disorders have a much lower threshold. Do you think the mentally ill just by pure coincidence 'choose' to commit suicide or perhaps there is a cause and effect going on. Why are people with certain genetic mutations more likely to kill themselves if stressed? If it's just 'choice' we should not expect to find such a correspondence. The evidence implies that something else is going on - faulty neruons /neuro networks. That's why it's called an 'ILLNESS'.
You point "without actually being malicious about it" shows that people with Asperger's often live in their own little world. We can't judge them on everyone else's terms.
By the way, I get that they are annoying. but they are autistic - faulty brain wiring. No need to get so judgmental.
Well if the stress of extradition would lead to suicide then obviously he should not be extradited. It's an issue of human rights.
It's often the case that the most stringent standard is applied against the individual. So you can be prosecuted for being a breaking US federal law while being outside the USA and not a citizen of the USA and yet not have a say in what the law is in the USA. Then you get denied the benefit of the law in the USA - eg posting so called hate speech on the USA server while in the UK.
If the basis of law is consent of the governed and one who is governed never has a chance to give their consent it makes the whole concept of the 'rule of law' a farce. (I think if you are being extradited ot the USA for a crime not committed in the USA you should be able to vote while awaiting trial and given all the rights of a citizen.)
And of course if you are foreigner trying to visit the USA, then you can be treated like shit and deported. No right to work - crap all. So when the government wants to treat you like someone who belongs in the USA they can and when they want to treat you like an alien they can.
You also have to ask by what right does country x have to prosecute person 'a' for an action taken in country y. The person was not in the jurisdiction of country x when the crime was committed.
...and Asperger's sufferer...
This has NOTHING to do with this issue.
Er given that Aspergers is a form of autism thus making it inappropriate to extradite him, it actually has a lot to do with the issue. Have you ever met anyone on the autistic spectrum?
If you don't live in the USA you hardly stand much a chance of getting fair trial if you are extradited. Firstly you need money for a private attorney if you want a real shot at a fair trial (public defenders are a joke most of the time; innocent people go to jail all the time - just look at he innocence project). And you are not allowed to work while you are awaiting trail in the USA further guaranteeing you getting screwed over. You are not familiar with the legal system - again another nail in the coffin of obtaining a fair trial. And consider that you don't know anyone to turn to for advice. And then you have to consider cultural factors - a jury in the USA is going to be less sympathetic to a foreigner.
Of course in this case its even worse - what he did would be a lesser crime in the UK. Why someone should subject to a foreign countries laws while doing something that is not in that foreign county amazes me. We don't give foreigners the vote so why should they be subject to our laws when not in our country. Let him be subject to British laws and let the British system deal with him (ie for his hacking).
He also has Asperger's Syndrome and this form of autism could really be a stress factor leading to suicude. A trial in a foreign country is no small deal. The whole thing stinks.
I love it that 'the obey the law no matter what' types go on and on about not pirating software and not infringing on copyright but when it's a big large corporation not giving you a refund, its different. When they short change you - very mysteriously its 'not stealing'. How very magical! I call it the 'Powerful corporations can never steal law'. How about we apply the same draconian penalties that we apply to copyright infringes to companies who don't issue refunds when the end users reject the UELA. How about we send them to jail as well?
Maybe as well if they claim that the cost of Windows XP is only $6 they need to show some evidence that they actually only paid $6 for it!
BTW the restocking fee is bulls###. They don't need to physically get back anything from you. They just invalidate the license. Besides here is quote from the EULA. Its says nothing about a restocking fee.
"YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."
If we are going to talk about everyone paying their own 'fair' share then consider:
1. For every $1 spent on kids and students, $10 is spent on retirees by the government. So lets cut social security and medicare and make sure everyone pays their pays fair share.
2. I spent 3 years working for free part time in a lab as an undergrad. I published 1 paper and might soon see a second one published. Well how about I get my 'fair share'. If a municipality wants to tax me on my tuition then how about all the local, state and federal government pay its fair share for my lab work that is benefiting everyone. I'll take $2000 a paper and minimum wage for the hours I put in. That's their 'fair share' to me.
3. So since now we are going to be paying our own 'fair share' then all students paying this tax should be able to drink alcohol - cause we are all paying our own fair share.
4. And undergrads normally get paid $7-$9 an hour so that better go up by at least 50% now that everyone is paying their own 'fair share'.
5. And all those older people should also have to sign up for the draft (or national service) cause we all need to pay our own fair share.
6. I'd like to vote where I go to college even if I am technically a non resident now I am going to pay my own 'fair share'.
7. And the municipality should pay for the university police, roads and garbage cause we are all paying out own fair share. (well said Smallpond)
8. And that includes changing zoning requirements for college towns to have more rowdy bars and strip clubs now that we will be paying our own 'fair share'.
9. Don't expect any more volunteer work done by students in their local community now that they are all paying their own 'fair share'.
10. The per capita subsidy given to students has been falling in real terms. The university of California just voted to raise tuition by 32%. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20tuition.html?_r=1&hp] This imbecile of a mayor does not seem to get it that students are getting WAY LESS than their 'fair share' already.
Does this complete dick of a mayor not get it that when you get a college education it doesn't just pay dividends to you but to the whole society. You end up paying more taxes, being more productive, you are much more likely to innovate, you actually might create new jobs and you are much less likely to commit crime or be antisocial. Oh and you also might end up being useful to national security - I personally know projects that are being done for the DOD that are of critical importance. The list goes on and on. If people in America don't appreciate the huge importance of education we wont be a super power for much longer.
I am not interested in conspiracy theories, I just want to know the UK is freaken draconian when it comes to copyright. This despite the fact that there is lots of evidence that the increased terms for copyright and increased stringencies ae actually harmful. Also don't they also realize that they are potentially criminalizing a whole generation? It seems that they keep on wanting to extend copyright forever and would be quite happy if people were still paying copyright fees for the beetles in the 22nd century. Seriously I don't get it!
I have to agree with you on income tax being fairer. Sales tax is utterly evil - its regressive. Why should someone earning $8 an hour pay the same tax when he/she buys something as someone earning $100 an hour? It is seriously f*cked up! On top of that sales taxes keep on climbing everywhere in the USA. But states are far more reticent to raise income or capital gains taxes. The injustice is made worse by the fact that he USA has such a high Gini coefficient.
Even in liberal states the legislature doenst seem to get it. Massachetts a few months ago raised its sales tax from 5% to 6.25% and let towns add another 0.75% making it a potenital total of 7%. Then every year Mass taxes the ownership of cars at 2.5%. So when you buy a new car you are looking at an 8.75% (6.25% sales tax + 2.5% property tax) tax rate (on top of local sales taxes) for the first year. But their income tax is a flat rate of 5.3%. So it's screw you if your poor and let you off easier if your rich.
So I love it when places like Amazon don't collect sales tax. It's f*cking unjust to begin with. Not paying tax on internet sales just levels the playing field.
One other anecdote. Before 1991, Connecticut had a highly progressive income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%. Under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, this was changed to a tax on employment and investment income with an equal maximum rate of 4%. Now they have 2 tax bands of 3% and 5%. So it used to be rich people living of their investments paid taxes big time, now they go after the little people and screw them over. Oh and Connecticut still has a sales tax of 6% as well.
I hear this theory a lot - that despite the fact that no other country in the world has figured out how to use the free market to provide health care for all - somehow we could, if only the government was not in the way. OK well how about this? Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?
By the way if you are earning $8 how are you going to afford health care without government help under any system?
When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient, without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.
It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.
Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.
And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????
The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.
We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives. So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power. The problem is that the greenies block everything. They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy. Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL And then the greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain. They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality. Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us. I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use.
She's got a 2.7 GPA. That isn't outstanding, that's average. That isn't hard work, that's showing up to class and doing what you're told. I'd accept that she'd worked hard if she walked out of there with a 3.0+ GPA. A 2.7? Nope.
Because by definition about half the students at any given college score below average does that mean they are unworthy for a job? This whole below average thing is like musical chairs. The bottom half will always be there. To dismiss them is to pretend that somehow everyone could be above average if they worked hard enough.
I support the student's claim. College tuition has gone up way ahead of inflation+ average earnings. Yet the product that is produced is less likely to get someone a job. And lets not forget most colleges are not for profits. So aren't they in the business of doing something charitable (other than lining their own chancellors pockets)? Well it's time these institutions were held accountable.
Welcome to the real world. No, it isn't fair. Nothing is. Fairness is an artificial construct. In the real world nobody is going to give you a job just to be fair. You've got to earn your keep, just like everyone else out there.
Funny that cause we talk about "fair" in taxes and use that to stop politicians raising them on the middle class. And it's funny cause "fair" is used to justify compensation in in civil and criminal damages. And let's not forget that its because of "fairness" that we have such strict IP laws - especially to rich 60s pop stars. And what about "fair" to companies objecting to unions? But then again we seem to only care about "fairness" for those of high social economic status. The jobless, the poor, the uninsured - for them fair doesn't apply.
"The students were stealing bandwidth from open MediaWiki sites"
There were NOT stealing anything. They were merely using an abandoned resource. That is NOT stealing.
I wish someone would explain to me how and why the IP industry is powerful in the UK. There are so many industries that the UK government doesn't seem to care about. The don't spend much as a percentage of GDP on research in science of technology. They seem to hate economic development. Try building any kind of high tech manufacturing. Either they will say flat out no or burden you with red tape so much that you will just have to give up. It's sad because the education in the UK has improved tremendously over the last 20 years but all that talent is wasted. (See here for more details - http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34111_39352401_1_1_1_37443,00.html )
The question gets more poignant though when you think that political party financing is a lot more regulated that in the USA. Lobbying in politics has never been quite what it is the USA either. Government ministers get ideas and go with them sometimes no matter how crazy they are. But normally they are ideological - the poll tax, child welfare, spying on people, high taxes, etc. So the question comes up again - why the f*** are they so gung ho about IP?
> We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning. What you try to do is *reduce* the carbon output. And not consuming energy is the best for that. And the quickest.
With an attitude of not consuming energy you get a nihilistic attitude to everything. That is guaranteed to hit the economy. It also means that doing just about anything is soaked in guilt because it probably consumes energy. Not a healthy way to approach life at all.
I also dispute the fact that nothing can be zero carbon. Once we transition to electric vehicles then transportation can be zero carbon. We can similarly substitute the heat from non carbon sources in creating manufacturing products.
While I agree with the sentiment I cannot go so far as to be guilted into not using Google. This craziness stretches into other areas. Large plasma TVs are facing face being banned in the EU. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html
There is talk about heavily taxing the airline industry to bring down the number of miles flown.
There seems to be no middle ground. Either its denial of global warming or banning major economic and social activity in the name of the environment.
Of course we can solve the problem. We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power. Instead the greenies on Europe want to guilt anyone who uses energy. In the end all that does is to depress the economy, raise unemployment and lower standards of living.
Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about. The have stopped wind power on top of mountains in Vermont ( http://www.windaction.org/news/3653 )and filed lawsuits against solar power in the Nevada desert. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/25/are-some-solar-projects-no-longer-%E2%80%98green%E2%80%99/ They even oppose wind power out at sea - Nantucket sound. http://www.nesea.org/publications/NESun/cape_controversy.html Why? Because it's development and they hate ALL development. They always have some objection.
The irony is that we cannot address global warming BECAUSE of the opposition to environmentalists. Indeed if we are to use electric cars we are going to need many more (non carbon emitting) power stations which the experimentalists fight against tooth and nail.
And then I am always amazed by how so many people seem to forge that China is the number one emitter now and that India will soon be number two. If you cannot get these countries on board you are wasting your time. So while the EU impoverishes itself trying to reduce its carbon emissions by 1% China happily adds 10 times that every year anyway.
I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws when at this level there is plenty of evidence that they are having a deleterious economic impact. Even in countries in Europe where campaign contributions are not influential as in the USA. It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.
It also seems that whatever level of IP protection exists its never enough. Recently the EU considered extending copyright term lengths from 50 to 95 years. http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/07/17/eu-proposes-extending-copyright-term-length-95-years
If anyone has some insight I would appreciate it.
The number one reason I don't buy apple products is because they are a ripoff. NOT WORTH IT. Even for high end stuff I can normally get the equivalent product more cheaply. Sometimes the price difference is a mere 15%, sometimes its 30% and sometimes apple charges more than double for an equivalent product.
Secondly Apple is much more likely to make their own products obsolete. For example I know a few cases where people could not upgrade ram for their 3.5 year old laptops in an apple store because apple no longer sold compatible ram.
As far as I am concerned the real reason people go for apple is because 'its cool' and because their products are physically attractive. It gets scary because people who buy apple products treat the whole thing like a religion. There is no giving them rational arguments.
And I don't buy the whole operating system stability argument. If you need a stable OS that badly - use Linux.
I can think of one genuine method that could be tried. If you react Sodium metal with water you get hydrogen.
2 Na + 2 H2O > 2 NaOH + H2
You then react:
4H2 + 2 O2 --> 4 H2O
This would need the safe and contained sodium reaction which is not so simple. It would require production of pure sodium which is energy intensive. You would need to 'fill up' your car with sodium every so often.
So it's not 100% true that the car runs on just water. It also runs on sodium. This concept applies to other metals that will produce lots of hydrogen. The process will also produce lots of very strong basic solution which will require careful handling for safety reasons.
This is an example of the kind of morons that we decide to be legislators. Of course its unenforceable. Its a law that only a pure doofus could have made up. The better question is how is it we elect these people who are so out of reality. This guy reminds me of Jim Inhofe the senior Republican Senator for Oklahoma. Some of his ideas are also shocking. I think we need some kind of standardized test before people get to be legislators.
This is a perfect example of using the copyright law to forbid something that has nothing to do with the reason copyright was created. It's not as though creativity will be suppressed as a consequence. It's also an example of corporate lobbying for a law designed by and for a specific corporation. It stinks of corruption. The law is for the NFL not the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. We need IP reform and this is where it should begin.
Why do I smell the the evil odor of Microsoft at work? The battle is over. The only company who has an interest in continuing it given that Blu-ray will almost certainly dominate is Microsoft. I would love to know what they are up to behind the scenes.
This is a classic case of distorting what IP really is. They do have a Trademark on various aspects of the vehicle. They do not own these aspects. We merely allow them to monopolize the use of these symbols because we believe that it is essential for commerce. Without this justifcation it would be wrong to allow just one corporation to have a monoply on the use of an image. So we need to look if this justifcation applies.
We need to look at this situation and ask it it would be essential for commerce for Ford to restrict the use of the Trademarks on the proposed calendars. Given that the calendar is quite complimentary of the vehicles and that the owners group is not trying to create a new car or distort the image of the car there is no reason for us to allow a monopolization of the use of the trademarked images in this situation.
Here the restrictions that we place on everyone but Ford are not appropriate. We need a Trademark law that allows some reasonable use of Trademarks without the owners permission such as in this case.