This happens in the US too. The problem, as pointed out above is that it doesn't punish the FBI. The FBI gets to say "hey we arrested them, the stupid courts set them free", while still doing whatever they want and abusing their powers. Then the public as a whole suffers from the criminals being set free.
I'd just like to point out that a significant portion of those in the US military aren't US citizens. I was surprised by this, but many joined largely to get their citizenship.
Define "any given time". How about no political candidate may accept money, gifts, or anything else similar from anything other than individual private citizens? What legitimate reason does a corporation have to give money to a politician?
And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.
In that case yes the people of NY have made a bad choice and are paying for it. However, they made the choice and they pay for it. The other option is to remove their freedom of choice and with it the possibility to make good choices. For every example of trade that hurts one party there is an example of trade that benefits both. I, and I think most people, would rather have the freedom to make the bad choices with the hope of making good ones rather than have that decision made for me. That is the problem with freedom, often times people won't make the best decision. But as a society most of of us agree we'd rather have freedom even with the risk of bad choices.
It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.
Well if it requires a lifestyle change it almost certainly won't happen. People simply aren't willing to make permanent major changes in large numbers. I highly doubt that the we'll see a significant increase in home gardens in a decade. I agree it would be good if we did. I just don't think it is very likely.
They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.
I too am very much against farm subsidies (and most others), but again I think trade is good. Eliminating foreign trade may very well lessen US unemployment, but you also have to consider foreign employment. Trade brings balance, and in the long term that will benefit both parties. It comes down the the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Six billion people working together will make more progress than Six billion people working independently.
Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.
Well if that happens some one pays for that fuel. To them the Washington apples are worth the added cost of the fuel. Why not let them pay to have them shipped if they want them? If NY apple farmers can't compete then they need to find something they can do instead. Forcing the citizens of NY to buy the NY apples will only prop up the NY apple industry which clearly is inferior in some way to the WA one. Again in the long term this will hurt the people of NY. They will eat inferior apples and prevent them from finding something they can do better than the people of WA.
I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...
Those aren't the only choices though. We can not do manual labor and live in a world with reasonable amounts of pollution. As for permaculture, I see three possibilities. Either it increases food yield greatly, it requires a fundamental change in people's lifestyles, or it doesn't work. If it increases yield then I'm sure it will be utilized. If it requires people to fundamentally change their lifestyles then most people won't do it voluntarily. Most people enjoy their current lifestyle and simply won't change. Plans that require most people to change are flawed for this reason.
Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.
If we are talking about the US population then I'd bet a good chunk of the population on welfare could in fact work extreme hours and get off welfare. However, what reason would they have to do that? The economy won't handle massive sudden changes. However if some people on welfare were willing to work very hard long hours I'm sure they could find employment somewhere. I'm not trying to say they are lazy, I wouldn't want to work long hard hours, especially if I already had a source of income.
Exactly, one way gates aren't really a problem. You don't have to worry about people trying to sneak through in the correct direction because anyone can go through in that direction. On the Philly subway they have these metal rotating revolving door like gates. Like these: http://karul.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/subway-door.jpg
It seems pretty trivial to add something like this to airport exits.
If you think that a significant percentage unemployed people will spontaneously create new jobs with all their newly-found free time, you're delusional.
I don't think that at all, and wasn't trying to imply that large amounts of unemployment was good. Merely arguing that it isn't a universal bad thing. That it does in fact lead to progress. Without the freeing up of people to do new jobs those new jobs would never be created.
The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.
We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.
I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.
Trade makes things cheaper. What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida? Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.
Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.
I have to disagree that the level of apathy today would be affected by that ruling. The level of apathy is directly related to how well people feel their lives are. In the US virtually everyone has a high standard of living. People simply won't care about things that don't seem to directly affect their day to day lives.
Reread the quote from the Constitution, the copyright is what has to promote the progress of science, not the actual item. The memo could promote the progress of science, but the government granted exclusive right to use it wouldn't, since it was already confidential. A computer on your desk could promote the progress of science in the same way as that memo. Copyright is supposed to be granted on writings that have creative merit.
A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty
You raise a good point here. The fee probably does add some oversight. I was in supply in the Marines and I will agree with that statement. Perhaps another way to look at it would be that it isn't necessarily easier (as in less paperwork) to spend the larger sum, but rather that the recipient would be more willing to do whatever paperwork is needed to ensure they get that money. If we had some legitimate but not pressing need for a small $50 item we might go without it simply because no one felt like getting the purchase authorized. On the other hand when it came time for our multimillion dollar Office Depot contract you can bet Office Depot did whatever footwork was needed to make sure it went through without a hitch.
I'd guess the argument Yahoo would use would be that they aren't selling the emails, rather they are just billing for the time needed to provide them. It may be a thin line however in this case Yahoo has no choice but to provide the emails (with a warrant), and Federal law allows them to bill for costs incurred complying with warrants. Now if you found a case where a company was voluntarily providing copyrighted material (emails, SMS, chat logs) then you'd probably have a case. Note it probably wouldn't matter if Yahoo was selling the material or not, as current US copyright policy doesn't seem to provide any difference between commercial for profit infringement and personal use infringement.
If the government can pass laws that restrict you from being about to exercise your rights then what good are rights? The only way to make your lawful backup copies is to unlawfully break the DRM. In the US we have the right to freedom of speech. Should the government be able to come up with same law that effectively outlaws speech (say a law the prohibits you from making any sounds in public), while claiming that you still have the right, it's just illegal to exercise it.
As for your example about Seinfeld. As far as I can tell you don't have any legal rights to go home and watch Seinfeld. Even if you did, breaking the speed limit isn't the only way you could exercise that right. Sure you could put yourself in a situation where it was (as in you are 30 miles away and the show starts in 20 minutes). The key difference here is that you, not the government, put yourself in a position where the only way to exercise that right was to break the law.
If you did have the legal right to watch Seinfeld at your home, and the government required you be somewhere at a specific time, and that there was no way for you to legally get to your home in time to watch Seinfeld, then you'd have an argument that the government was preventing your from exercising your right.
From the Yahoo guide: http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf "Federal law (See 18 U.S.C. 2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children. Yahoo! may waive reimbursement in specific cases or recognize additional exceptions to this policy in the future."
If you don't like Yahoo billing for the information then blame the Federal law.
I don't know if it's been SOP, but if you read the Yahoo guide then it's pretty clear it is simply about complying with laws. They say, "Yahoo! generally will accept service of court orders, search warrants, and criminal grand jury or administrative subpoenas for the production of documents by fax from government entities.", and "Federal law (See 18 U.S.C. 2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children. Yahoo! may waive reimbursement in specific cases or recognize additional exceptions to this policy in the future.".
As far as I can tell there is no proof Yahoo is providing information without warrants. Other companies do provide the information without warrant, and I'm not trying to claim Yahoo definitely doesn't. Yahoo did however issue a DMCA takedown notice, which is another classic example of the ridiculousness of the DMCA.
This is a significant loophole in our (US) current government system. Laws which hurt the lawmakers, but are a benefit to the Public have to be passed by the lawmakers. The Constitution should specifically grant the power to legislate Federal lawmakers to the States. I could foresee any law which would regulate Federal lawmakers having to be passed by a majority of state legislators. Similar to Constitutional amendments, but only requiring a simple majority.
There is no civil case here as there has been no copyright infringement. Rather in Denmark it is illegal to break DRM. He broke DRM and thus broke the law. The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.
Well the first link says alcohol kills only certain types of viruses. I guess it's easier for Purel to just say bacteria then go into detail about which viruses it kills.
What kills influenza virus? Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212F [75-100C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.
And then the People of NY wouldn't be represented in the Federal Government. If the People of NY cared enough about that they would elect different state government that could do their job properly. If they didn't care then they probably shouldn't be represented.
Slashdot Mirror
This happens in the US too. The problem, as pointed out above is that it doesn't punish the FBI. The FBI gets to say "hey we arrested them, the stupid courts set them free", while still doing whatever they want and abusing their powers. Then the public as a whole suffers from the criminals being set free.
Citation? I certainly believe it, but would like to read about it.
I'd just like to point out that a significant portion of those in the US military aren't US citizens. I was surprised by this, but many joined largely to get their citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Demographic_controversies
Define "any given time". How about no political candidate may accept money, gifts, or anything else similar from anything other than individual private citizens? What legitimate reason does a corporation have to give money to a politician?
And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.
In that case yes the people of NY have made a bad choice and are paying for it. However, they made the choice and they pay for it. The other option is to remove their freedom of choice and with it the possibility to make good choices. For every example of trade that hurts one party there is an example of trade that benefits both. I, and I think most people, would rather have the freedom to make the bad choices with the hope of making good ones rather than have that decision made for me. That is the problem with freedom, often times people won't make the best decision. But as a society most of of us agree we'd rather have freedom even with the risk of bad choices.
It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.
Well if it requires a lifestyle change it almost certainly won't happen. People simply aren't willing to make permanent major changes in large numbers. I highly doubt that the we'll see a significant increase in home gardens in a decade. I agree it would be good if we did. I just don't think it is very likely.
They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.
I too am very much against farm subsidies (and most others), but again I think trade is good. Eliminating foreign trade may very well lessen US unemployment, but you also have to consider foreign employment. Trade brings balance, and in the long term that will benefit both parties. It comes down the the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Six billion people working together will make more progress than Six billion people working independently.
Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.
Well if that happens some one pays for that fuel. To them the Washington apples are worth the added cost of the fuel. Why not let them pay to have them shipped if they want them? If NY apple farmers can't compete then they need to find something they can do instead. Forcing the citizens of NY to buy the NY apples will only prop up the NY apple industry which clearly is inferior in some way to the WA one. Again in the long term this will hurt the people of NY. They will eat inferior apples and prevent them from finding something they can do better than the people of WA.
I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...
Those aren't the only choices though. We can not do manual labor and live in a world with reasonable amounts of pollution. As for permaculture, I see three possibilities. Either it increases food yield greatly, it requires a fundamental change in people's lifestyles, or it doesn't work. If it increases yield then I'm sure it will be utilized. If it requires people to fundamentally change their lifestyles then most people won't do it voluntarily. Most people enjoy their current lifestyle and simply won't change. Plans that require most people to change are flawed for this reason.
Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.
If we are talking about the US population then I'd bet a good chunk of the population on welfare could in fact work extreme hours and get off welfare. However, what reason would they have to do that? The economy won't handle massive sudden changes. However if some people on welfare were willing to work very hard long hours I'm sure they could find employment somewhere. I'm not trying to say they are lazy, I wouldn't want to work long hard hours, especially if I already had a source of income.
Exactly, one way gates aren't really a problem. You don't have to worry about people trying to sneak through in the correct direction because anyone can go through in that direction. On the Philly subway they have these metal rotating revolving door like gates. Like these:
http://karul.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/subway-door.jpg
It seems pretty trivial to add something like this to airport exits.
If you think that a significant percentage unemployed people will spontaneously create new jobs with all their newly-found free time, you're delusional.
I don't think that at all, and wasn't trying to imply that large amounts of unemployment was good. Merely arguing that it isn't a universal bad thing. That it does in fact lead to progress. Without the freeing up of people to do new jobs those new jobs would never be created.
The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.
We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.
I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.
Trade makes things cheaper. What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida? Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.
Google's DNS service doesn't do this.
Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.
I have to disagree that the level of apathy today would be affected by that ruling. The level of apathy is directly related to how well people feel their lives are. In the US virtually everyone has a high standard of living. People simply won't care about things that don't seem to directly affect their day to day lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
Reread the quote from the Constitution, the copyright is what has to promote the progress of science, not the actual item. The memo could promote the progress of science, but the government granted exclusive right to use it wouldn't, since it was already confidential. A computer on your desk could promote the progress of science in the same way as that memo. Copyright is supposed to be granted on writings that have creative merit.
A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty
You raise a good point here. The fee probably does add some oversight. I was in supply in the Marines and I will agree with that statement. Perhaps another way to look at it would be that it isn't necessarily easier (as in less paperwork) to spend the larger sum, but rather that the recipient would be more willing to do whatever paperwork is needed to ensure they get that money. If we had some legitimate but not pressing need for a small $50 item we might go without it simply because no one felt like getting the purchase authorized. On the other hand when it came time for our multimillion dollar Office Depot contract you can bet Office Depot did whatever footwork was needed to make sure it went through without a hitch.
I'd guess the argument Yahoo would use would be that they aren't selling the emails, rather they are just billing for the time needed to provide them. It may be a thin line however in this case Yahoo has no choice but to provide the emails (with a warrant), and Federal law allows them to bill for costs incurred complying with warrants. Now if you found a case where a company was voluntarily providing copyrighted material (emails, SMS, chat logs) then you'd probably have a case. Note it probably wouldn't matter if Yahoo was selling the material or not, as current US copyright policy doesn't seem to provide any difference between commercial for profit infringement and personal use infringement.
If the government can pass laws that restrict you from being about to exercise your rights then what good are rights? The only way to make your lawful backup copies is to unlawfully break the DRM. In the US we have the right to freedom of speech. Should the government be able to come up with same law that effectively outlaws speech (say a law the prohibits you from making any sounds in public), while claiming that you still have the right, it's just illegal to exercise it.
As for your example about Seinfeld. As far as I can tell you don't have any legal rights to go home and watch Seinfeld. Even if you did, breaking the speed limit isn't the only way you could exercise that right. Sure you could put yourself in a situation where it was (as in you are 30 miles away and the show starts in 20 minutes). The key difference here is that you, not the government, put yourself in a position where the only way to exercise that right was to break the law.
If you did have the legal right to watch Seinfeld at your home, and the government required you be somewhere at a specific time, and that there was no way for you to legally get to your home in time to watch Seinfeld, then you'd have an argument that the government was preventing your from exercising your right.
From the Yahoo guide:
http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
"Federal law (See 18 U.S.C. 2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children. Yahoo! may waive reimbursement in specific cases or recognize additional exceptions to this policy in the future."
If you don't like Yahoo billing for the information then blame the Federal law.
I don't know if it's been SOP, but if you read the Yahoo guide then it's pretty clear it is simply about complying with laws. They say, "Yahoo! generally will accept service of court orders, search warrants, and criminal grand jury or administrative subpoenas for the production of documents by fax from government entities.", and "Federal law (See 18 U.S.C. 2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children. Yahoo! may waive reimbursement in specific cases or recognize additional exceptions to this policy in the future.".
As far as I can tell there is no proof Yahoo is providing information without warrants. Other companies do provide the information without warrant, and I'm not trying to claim Yahoo definitely doesn't. Yahoo did however issue a DMCA takedown notice, which is another classic example of the ridiculousness of the DMCA.
This is a significant loophole in our (US) current government system. Laws which hurt the lawmakers, but are a benefit to the Public have to be passed by the lawmakers. The Constitution should specifically grant the power to legislate Federal lawmakers to the States. I could foresee any law which would regulate Federal lawmakers having to be passed by a majority of state legislators. Similar to Constitutional amendments, but only requiring a simple majority.
There is no civil case here as there has been no copyright infringement. Rather in Denmark it is illegal to break DRM. He broke DRM and thus broke the law. The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.
Well the first link says alcohol kills only certain types of viruses. I guess it's easier for Purel to just say bacteria then go into detail about which viruses it kills.
http://microbiology.suite101.com/article.cfm/alcohol_based_hand_cleansers
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm#e
What kills influenza virus?
Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212F [75-100C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.
no but when this kind of energy is being required
7 Trillion electron volts = 1.1215 micro joules. According to Wikipedia that's equivalent to the kinetic energy of 7 flying mosquitoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#10-6
And then the People of NY wouldn't be represented in the Federal Government. If the People of NY cared enough about that they would elect different state government that could do their job properly. If they didn't care then they probably shouldn't be represented.
A very good summery of the problem. As they say, "I wish I had mod points".