The very term and concept of "intellectual property" is a contrivance of the corporate/legal establishment to expand the reach of the distinct concepts of copyright and patent law by conflating them with physical property (land, buildings, possessions). We can readily see this confusion in the posts here. Thought should not be patentable (e.g. business processes-"one-click shopping"). Einstein could not patent the Theory of Relativity. Intellectual discovery is not the same as invention since what you have discovered is "out there" and just awaiting discovery. You have invented nothing. Genetically modified seeds should not be patentable, only the specific hardware or software unique to the process and developed by you. This would more properly come under propriety information. Encoding the human genome should not be patentable but any specific invention produced to do it might well be. The solution is to go back to the very basic principles of patent and copyright law i.e. a unique physical invention or creative product; a limited duration monopoly to encourage and reward invention; and the use it or lose it principle. Patent and copyright protection is one thing: enforcement and penalties for violations is another issue. When does the public interest trump blind enforcement of individual rights? e.g. the music industry where technology has made obsolete one business model and the industry is resisting a new one. When the public has no respect for a law or deems it obsolete, in this case rights to recorded music, then the law has to change. The first line of defense for the public interest is to be very cautious and sparing in granting monopoly rights and to keep them very limited in scope and duration.
There is no right to anonymity in the public space. The UK should identify the problem then look for a solution. Why are CCTV's not as effective as they could be?
Yes, but it is dangerous for ebay buyers to talk to sellers as they could take their transactions off-ebay and save money. ebay has always done all it can to discourage this. I think ebay got confused and lost sight of this when it bought Skype.
There is no logical connection between instinct (nature) and morality (nurture) Your reasoning is wrong: your indignation is misplaced. You may also be an idiot, but more importantly, you don't know what you are talking about here.
Cannibalism is quite moral to the Cannibal who was lead to it for survival. Your thinking is even more primitive and is certainly logically false. Moral codes are social conventions derived over centuries of social-interaction. They themselves are the product of social evolution (experience through trial and error). They are intended to curb the natural instincts of the INDIVIDUAL so that they can live in groups. Social Darwinisn, which often is too quickly and tritely applied, is an excellent explanation as to why we have these instincts or inclinations in the first place.
Yes, but the Canadians asked nicely before doing it and brought along blankets and coffee for everyone who was put out by the fire. Yes! So that's how Tim Hortons got started!
Absolutely nothing, from Obama, Clinton, or McCain. The presumption has to be that they would keep things as they are. So much for the Constitution and privacy rights. I guess the Time article is right about the American public not caring. Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who said " no-one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
Obama should be railing against the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration and making concrete proposals for reversing them, not waiting to be asked by the media. Hillary is worse but then less is expected of her. She is not running on a "change' platform. She is Bush-lite.
Although I have no major problems with Obama (or Clinton for that matter) I don't hear Obama talking about rolling-back the egregious constitutional violations of the Bush-Cheney era. He is promising a change of style but I have not seen or heard anything about any change of substance. Just a kinder, gentler, politician. Business more or less as usual.
Anyone who would want to be President (Senator...etc. etc.) should be automatically disqualified from running for office. All is ego and power.
A demand from SOME people. Elected representatives are sent to govern, not to take polls. Hopefully they are selected on the basis of their intelligence and judgement, not their ability to pander. If all the border security fanatics would stand up and say they wanted their taxes raised so that more resources would be devoted to it, more people, more equipment, more frequent patrols etc. etc. they would have more credibility. "No more taxes" doesn't cut it. And beware of unintended consequences. But on a more cheerful note, as a devoted/.er I have come up with a brilliant solution to the whole problem. Ask the Mexican Government to declare that it is Communist and loves Fidel Castro. Then all the Mexican migrants are heroic freedom fighters fleeing a despotic regime. They will all be applauded for their courage in taking great risks to cross the border to freedom, and we can go back to watching Fox news or playing video games, and saying how great America is.
You're wrong here. The scientific method is about more than science. It is about how you look at the world. It should be taught, but not using the term "scientific method" Young people should be taught to be sceptical, to demand proof. and to recognise and value rational exposition in all spheres of life. That way they can challenge their parents when fed irrational religious and political fantasies. Education, if allowed to be, can be dangerous stuff. That's why we have oxymorons like Oral Roberts University and the like. Keep the kids fenced-in and brainwashed. A true University is a place you go to learn that all you have been taught by your parents is suspect and needs to be challenged and reassessed.
Only one way. Have good teachers teach good science. Start in kindergarden. As the Jesuits say, give me a child before the age of seven and i will have him for life.
In the presidential candidate debates to date, have you heard anyone ask Hillary or Barack what they will do to roll back the Bush assault on the constitution with regard to Executive Power, civil liberties and privacy rights? Are these concepts too difficult for the media hosts to grasp? Does no-care how the current mess will be fixed? Is everyone seduced by the bullshit "national security" mantra? Is the status quo OK if it is a Democrat in power? Have you heard anyone ask John McCain to justify what Bush has done? What is it with this country?
I agree with you on both of these. CNN International is very different from domestic CNN, and better for it: more serious and thoughtful. The BBC is good because it doesn't treat a news broadcast as entertainment or propaganda, but as information.
Beware the Law of Unintended (or not thought through) Consequences. Simplicity in a complex world is not itself a solution. Your quotes only point-out the wisdom of choosing the simplest of complex options that work. It always helps to define the problem before jumping into a solution. If we don't agree on the problem we will never agree on the solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if only Americans could come up with checks against the powers of King George Bush.
A PhD is an academic qualification. An MD is a trade diploma.
PhD's who insist on the title "Dr" outside the academic environment are insecure, pompous twits.
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The very term and concept of "intellectual property" is a contrivance of the corporate/legal establishment to expand the reach of the distinct concepts of copyright and patent law by conflating them with physical property (land, buildings, possessions). We can readily see this confusion in the posts here. Thought should not be patentable (e.g. business processes-"one-click shopping"). Einstein could not patent the Theory of Relativity. Intellectual discovery is not the same as invention since what you have discovered is "out there" and just awaiting discovery. You have invented nothing. Genetically modified seeds should not be patentable, only the specific hardware or software unique to the process and developed by you. This would more properly come under propriety information. Encoding the human genome should not be patentable but any specific invention produced to do it might well be. The solution is to go back to the very basic principles of patent and copyright law i.e. a unique physical invention or creative product; a limited duration monopoly to encourage and reward invention; and the use it or lose it principle. Patent and copyright protection is one thing: enforcement and penalties for violations is another issue. When does the public interest trump blind enforcement of individual rights? e.g. the music industry where technology has made obsolete one business model and the industry is resisting a new one. When the public has no respect for a law or deems it obsolete, in this case rights to recorded music, then the law has to change. The first line of defense for the public interest is to be very cautious and sparing in granting monopoly rights and to keep them very limited in scope and duration.
We are ahead of you. Haven't you heard of Neighbourhood Watch?
There is no right to anonymity in the public space. The UK should identify the problem then look for a solution. Why are CCTV's not as effective as they could be?
"droughts reduced the population to as few as 2,000 humans"
Damn those Republicans. Was Iraq not enough?
Yes, but it is dangerous for ebay buyers to talk to sellers as they could take their transactions off-ebay and save money. ebay has always done all it can to discourage this. I think ebay got confused and lost sight of this when it bought Skype.
There is no logical connection between instinct (nature) and morality (nurture) Your reasoning is wrong: your indignation is misplaced. You may also be an idiot, but more importantly, you don't know what you are talking about here.
Cannibalism is quite moral to the Cannibal who was lead to it for survival. Your thinking is even more primitive and is certainly logically false. Moral codes are social conventions derived over centuries of social-interaction. They themselves are the product of social evolution (experience through trial and error). They are intended to curb the natural instincts of the INDIVIDUAL so that they can live in groups. Social Darwinisn, which often is too quickly and tritely applied, is an excellent explanation as to why we have these instincts or inclinations in the first place.
Absolutely nothing, from Obama, Clinton, or McCain. The presumption has to be that they would keep things as they are. So much for the Constitution and privacy rights. I guess the Time article is right about the American public not caring. Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who said " no-one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
Obama should be railing against the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration and making concrete proposals for reversing them, not waiting to be asked by the media. Hillary is worse but then less is expected of her. She is not running on a "change' platform. She is Bush-lite.
Although I have no major problems with Obama (or Clinton for that matter) I don't hear Obama talking about rolling-back the egregious constitutional violations of the Bush-Cheney era. He is promising a change of style but I have not seen or heard anything about any change of substance. Just a kinder, gentler, politician. Business more or less as usual.
Anyone who would want to be President (Senator...etc. etc.) should be automatically disqualified from running for office. All is ego and power.
A demand from SOME people. Elected representatives are sent to govern, not to take polls. Hopefully they are selected on the basis of their intelligence and judgement, not their ability to pander. If all the border security fanatics would stand up and say they wanted their taxes raised so that more resources would be devoted to it, more people, more equipment, more frequent patrols etc. etc. they would have more credibility. "No more taxes" doesn't cut it. And beware of unintended consequences. /.er I have come up with a brilliant solution to the whole problem. Ask the Mexican Government to declare that it is Communist and loves Fidel Castro. Then all the Mexican migrants are heroic freedom fighters fleeing a despotic regime. They will all be applauded for their courage in taking great risks to cross the border to freedom, and we can go back to watching Fox news or playing video games, and saying how great America is.
But on a more cheerful note, as a devoted
You're wrong here. The scientific method is about more than science. It is about how you look at the world. It should be taught, but not using the term "scientific method" Young people should be taught to be sceptical, to demand proof. and to recognise and value rational exposition in all spheres of life. That way they can challenge their parents when fed irrational religious and political fantasies. Education, if allowed to be, can be dangerous stuff. That's why we have oxymorons like Oral Roberts University and the like. Keep the kids fenced-in and brainwashed. A true University is a place you go to learn that all you have been taught by your parents is suspect and needs to be challenged and reassessed.
Before things like TLC or Discovery...... there were books. People used to read.
There's not a big enough island.
Only one way. Have good teachers teach good science. Start in kindergarden. As the Jesuits say, give me a child before the age of seven and i will have him for life.
In the presidential candidate debates to date, have you heard anyone ask Hillary or Barack what they will do to roll back the Bush assault on the constitution with regard to Executive Power, civil liberties and privacy rights? Are these concepts too difficult for the media hosts to grasp? Does no-care how the current mess will be fixed? Is everyone seduced by the bullshit "national security" mantra? Is the status quo OK if it is a Democrat in power? Have you heard anyone ask John McCain to justify what Bush has done? What is it with this country?
I agree with you on both of these. CNN International is very different from domestic CNN, and better for it: more serious and thoughtful. The BBC is good because it doesn't treat a news broadcast as entertainment or propaganda, but as information.
"I apologize"??? Dangerous talk. This guy must be banned immediately from /.
Beware the Law of Unintended (or not thought through) Consequences. Simplicity in a complex world is not itself a solution. Your quotes only point-out the wisdom of choosing the simplest of complex options that work. It always helps to define the problem before jumping into a solution. If we don't agree on the problem we will never agree on the solution.
Simple solutions for simple Minds. Now what was the problem again?
Criticism, even ridicule, is not persecution. And most people went to America to make a buck.