How in the hell could copyright have anything whatever to do with national security?
Because it isn't supposed to be about copyright. It is supposed to be about counterfeiting. The issues dealing with counterfeiting of monetary instruments ARE a national security concern.
If someone were able to 'grow' US dollars in the convoluted transactions which take place in international banking it could severely damage the US in a significant manner. Countries use their economies as weapons, and a threat to those weapons does exist in counterfeiting. Especially in counterfeiting that is 'permitted' by another state.
That IS a good reason to protect this treaty's negotiations as if they were national security issues, because they are.
However, some people bribed the right people and got the ears of the negotiators so that they could sneak in what are NOT major national security issues into a closed door negotiation since their proposals could not stand up under the disinfecting light of day.
I'd like to see the whole negotiations brought to a halt, because this method of sliding other issues into a bill or treaty is something that has seriously damaged the United States, and I don't want to see it expanded.
If you bought a stolen physical book, that book can be taken back from you. The fact that its unlikely to happen is not relevant to the discussion. Amazon did better than you'd get if you bought stolen goods -- they refunded the money. If you bought virtually any other stolen item, you'd be out the item and your money.
Something else that isn't relevant are comparisons to stolen goods.
These people did NOT buy stolen goods. It would be a stretch to even call them counterfeit goods.
It was kept intentionally wrong for a long period of time (specifically with respect to the capitalization of 'people') It may seem silly, but it was an important point of debate for anyone interested in the topic.
For a long period of time, any changes to the capitalization were instantly reverted back and blamed on 'vandalism'
I think I actually sparked off the discussion on the fact that there was something to the topic when I linked to the text and an image of the original Constitution in the National Archives and even THAT was reverted as 'vandalism'.
They finally got around to putting in some discussion regarding the fact that while the original in the National Archives uses the lowercase 'people', copies sent to the states had an uppercase 'People'. But getting to that point took several attempts to change it.
Now, you probably know my opinion since I advocated using the wording of the original from the National Archives, but that is beside the point. The point is that any article in which people have a motivation to see one side presented more 'equally' than another side, is going to have some factual fudging going on.
And even more to the point:
When looking at Wikipedia, especially scientific articles, you don't have experts on hand who are immediately able to tell if a change is 'correct' or not. I could go into some biology article and say that some obscure process results in a slightly different output of a chemical and no one would easily be able to counteract me without being able to understand the topic, and the 'study' or source I used as my justification.
It is mutable, and unless you completely trust every author and trust that any errors were caught, wikipedia is risky.
Car Analogy: You trust you won't get into a car accident, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for them to happen.
The brain knows the difference. I've met quite a few people that have done tandem skydives and felt fine, but froze up scared when they did their first non-tandem skydive where they knew they'd have to deal with everything themselves.
I do flight testing. Let me tell you there is a HUGE difference between video games and real life.
And by Huge, I mean spending a god awful walking up and down a runway looking for potential FOD.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Seriously? If you have several variables (as you claim) and observe no meaningful changes in the brain cancer rate it leaves you with the following outcomes:
1. Some radio waves DO cause cancer, but some radio waves also decrease it at the exact same rate, and those counteracting radio waves interacted just enough to cause the results of the study to indicate that the original waves which may or may not have been causing cancer to be cancelled out at just the right times.
2. Radio Waves do cause cancer, but something new introduced at exactly the same time is counteracting that. This new 'thing' must have occured and been adopted at the same rate as cell phones.
3. Radio Waves do not cause brain cancer.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
Close but not quite. Incomplete knowledge of the contents increases a person's desire to hear it. I have a musician friend who I cannot sit and listen to music with, because as soon as the song plays he skips it. He already has the song committed to memory and does not need to experience it any more.
I do that all the time. It drives my wife nuts. I'll typically listen to a few seconds, recall the song and then jump to the next one. I suppose it is weird, but I could do that for hours and I get a great deal of enjoyment out of it.
I'll pay attention next time to see if I do it more often with classics or pop music. Right now I'd guess it's about 50/50, but I wonder if that's the case.
Never trust a law to not permit something if it doesn't forbid it. If it grants someone the power to do something, even if they have no intention of using it, they will use it eventually.
I'm sorry buddy, I'm European. The word "love" was for me to indicated a warmhearted felt appreciation for new information and a decent upgrade in knowledge which I anticipate to start in 4-5 hours. I don't consider that a problem.
4-5 hours is good, because doesn't it take some time for those ED treatments to kick in?
So there are no other countries in the world that can do Lithium production? At least it is a good thing that China has earned all that IP goodwill so that no one would copy their processes.
Ship it back to the manufacturer if you want to make a statement. Corporate HQ is probably the best since they don't have the on site means/processes for disposal.
Something that is sensitive enough to determine if there is someone who is slightly breathing is probably going to be negatively affected by the movement involved in a house burning down.
So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.
I have over 100 friends on facebook.
My clearance investigation took 2 months. Do you really think that they investigate everyone 'friended' in facebook?
My closest friends don't even have Facebook accounts. For them to investigate EVERYONE you friended on facebook, they are really wasting their resources and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what Facebook is.
And 100 friends on facebook is very few. I could easily add the recommended friends and rack up a few hundred more.
While your post is a bit off the wall, you are falling into a trap.
Do NOT rely on the fact that limited manpower is somehow a justification for a breach of your rights. In other words, just because something is not possible now, doesn't mean that we should grant them the power to do it.
It's the same problem whenever someone asks for powers to be 'future-proof'. That term is simply an excuse for 'We don't have the public support or justification for that power, but don't worry we can't physically do it. . . . . ....yet'
What a dumb law. If the guy in front of you is going the speed limit, then from a strictly letter-of-the-law viewpoint, why do you need to be able to pass him? So you can get in front of him and continue going the speed limit? If he's going slower than the speed limit (far more of a hazard than speeding, by the way), then just by going the speed limit you'd overtake him. What's the point of building in an exception like that?
So you can minimize the time that the cars spend side by side. It is safer to pass a car quickly.
In your situation, if the person were driving 54 and the speed limit was 55, you could only pass him at a 1MPH differential. That will put you in the passing lane (or the oncoming traffice lane) for a longer period than if you simply accelerated to 65, passed, and then decelerated to 55 after you put a safe margin between you and the car you just passed.
You aren't just passing the car, you are passing the car AND the safe distance in front of the car.
If you are going above 100, you have NO business being in any other lane than the "passing lane".
Pretending you drive for NASCAR is what causes accidents. Not grannies loitering in the passing lane.
If you are in the passing lane and not passing, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, if you are cruising in the passing lane you are wrong.
Really...$100k to remove seti from 5000 machines?...because I *REALLY* want that job. It's an hour of scripting and a few days (at most) to test. Push it out over a weekend, run an inventory...follow up on the few failures.
If that is all it would take, you would probably be ok with $5k. However, I'm willing to bet that this isn't like some University where they have 5000 machines all in the same configuration. You are probably dealing with machines that were purchased in lots of 50-100 at most. Even assuming that you could group that script/test approach to 3 lots at a time, you are still looking at sixteen cycles at best.
16 * $5000 = 80,000
So 100,000 isn't that jawdropping.
If we were dealing with something like a University's computer labs, I'd agree with you, even if every machine had to be reimaged it shouldn't be too monumental of a task. In fact, if it were a situation like that, I'd probably just work the removal into the next configuration release and thus eliminate a huge portion of that cost since we would be doing the work on each machine anyway.
I'm guessing that the law there is similar to the US in which you really can't do much about a law until it actually impacts you. I'm not sure I'm happy with that situation, in that some poor soul (or souls) has to effectively be martyred before the 'protections' kick in.
Or is this case simply one of two laws which contradict each other?
That's how I found out. People thought I was kidding when I said I couldn't read the ishihara tests.
It's a bitch of a disability too, I've had many job opportunities pulled from me because of it, and the misunderstanding of what color blindness actually is.
Why is that a problem? Because the government doesn't consider color blindness a real disability. Increasing numbers of jobs tack on 'normal color vision' into their job descriptions because some person up the chain thought it would be a good thing to toss in.
I once had to fight for my job as a test engineer because I worked with aircraft. Naturally the government decided that since it dealt with aircraft, you had to have normal color vision. Because you know how important color vision is when testing god damned communication links.
I had to go to vision specialists to 'prove' that I could do my job. It took 2 months to get everything sorted out.
Too many people don't understand what this disability is, and think it is ok to just slap the 'normal color vision' requirement into a job without actually considering what that means.
However, such is not the case in this situation. For example:
I may rent my vehicle to you and state that you are ONLY allowed to use this vehicle to drive yourself to the hospital in a medical emergency. You would not be allowed to drive this vehicle to go vote.
Or I could sell you a cell phone which only calls 911 or the local police station.
Simply because I am not permitting you to exercise your right through a service does not automatically imply that I am not permitting you from exercising your right at all.
You know that Occam is cutting himself in his grave right now, don't you? Along the wrists.
Is the theory that some bored telecom guy collected this data more complicated than the government collecting this data? In fact, it is quite possible and likely that SEVERAL sources have this pager data.
We have actual evidence of people collecting data on open WIFI spots, it shouldn't be surprising that someone might have collected this data for any number of purposes.
Actually, that's not "good enough" because it does not protect your data from fire or theft damage. Clearly, you are not in IT.
Clearly, you know what is best for me and my data.
It is 'good enough' protection because the customer is ME and it is MY data.
1. The safe is fireproof and waterproof. (Fire protection) 2. The safe is a safe (Theft protection). 3. The safe is not in my house (no single point of failure)
Tell me again how what I deem is good enough for my data isn't good enough for my needs? Just how critical is MY data? Since you seem to know what is good enough, how much should I spend to protect it?
Do you even know what it is I am storing? Will it take me 1 hour to recreate it or is it not able to be reproduced? Is it simply a copy of my favorited websites, or the deed to my house?
Sorry to sound a bit snappy with this, but I'm not trying to solve the worlds IT problems here.
I'm not one to rely on Google completely, but I do use it as a 'buffer' with respect to my backups.
I am NOT an IT guy, I just play one on TV (and to my family). Unfortunately you are making broad assumptions about what is 'better' for the vast majority of people. The issue that some of these people are worried about isn't just the reliability/integrity of these services, but that there won't be some sort of intentional 'mistake' with your data.
My backup system is primitive. Every so often I take all of my important documents and mirror them on DVDs which go into my safe. With the rate at which HD space is increasing, I generally have all of my old data sitting on my live computer, with 3 month DVD mirrors in my safe.
Honestly, for my data, that's good enough. If my live disk fails, I have DVDs (at most 3-6 months old) and if the DVDs spontaneously combust, my live disk is probably still working. Google is my buffer in between. It sits there in case both my DVDs and my disk fail at the same time and I have a solid belief that the most important stuff will still be there.
I just get worried that something I have may be inspected and determined to be 'infringing' something or 'offensive' and automatically deleted.
I just don't see the cloud completely replacing even my rudimentary backup system, enhancing it perhaps, but certainly not replacing it.
Of course, the irony is that I'm setting up a storage server which will be hosting data from my entire extended family. (basic network storage) In essence, I'm going to be the cloud to them.
I like to abuse my network by complaining how slow it is to responding to my requests for pictures of sandwiches and how much space its old equipment takes up. I always threaten to keep it off the surge protector or knock it off the shelf so I can get a nice new slim model with all the bells and whistles.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the hell could copyright have anything whatever to do with national security?
Because it isn't supposed to be about copyright. It is supposed to be about counterfeiting. The issues dealing with counterfeiting of monetary instruments ARE a national security concern.
If someone were able to 'grow' US dollars in the convoluted transactions which take place in international banking it could severely damage the US in a significant manner. Countries use their economies as weapons, and a threat to those weapons does exist in counterfeiting. Especially in counterfeiting that is 'permitted' by another state.
That IS a good reason to protect this treaty's negotiations as if they were national security issues, because they are.
However, some people bribed the right people and got the ears of the negotiators so that they could sneak in what are NOT major national security issues into a closed door negotiation since their proposals could not stand up under the disinfecting light of day.
I'd like to see the whole negotiations brought to a halt, because this method of sliding other issues into a bill or treaty is something that has seriously damaged the United States, and I don't want to see it expanded.
If you bought a stolen physical book, that book can be taken back from you. The fact that its unlikely to happen is not relevant to the discussion. Amazon did better than you'd get if you bought stolen goods -- they refunded the money. If you bought virtually any other stolen item, you'd be out the item and your money.
Something else that isn't relevant are comparisons to stolen goods.
These people did NOT buy stolen goods. It would be a stretch to even call them counterfeit goods.
The Second Amendment page.
It was kept intentionally wrong for a long period of time (specifically with respect to the capitalization of 'people') It may seem silly, but it was an important point of debate for anyone interested in the topic.
For a long period of time, any changes to the capitalization were instantly reverted back and blamed on 'vandalism'
I think I actually sparked off the discussion on the fact that there was something to the topic when I linked to the text and an image of the original Constitution in the National Archives and even THAT was reverted as 'vandalism'.
They finally got around to putting in some discussion regarding the fact that while the original in the National Archives uses the lowercase 'people', copies sent to the states had an uppercase 'People'. But getting to that point took several attempts to change it.
Now, you probably know my opinion since I advocated using the wording of the original from the National Archives, but that is beside the point. The point is that any article in which people have a motivation to see one side presented more 'equally' than another side, is going to have some factual fudging going on.
And even more to the point:
When looking at Wikipedia, especially scientific articles, you don't have experts on hand who are immediately able to tell if a change is 'correct' or not. I could go into some biology article and say that some obscure process results in a slightly different output of a chemical and no one would easily be able to counteract me without being able to understand the topic, and the 'study' or source I used as my justification.
It is mutable, and unless you completely trust every author and trust that any errors were caught, wikipedia is risky.
Car Analogy: You trust you won't get into a car accident, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for them to happen.
The brain knows the difference. I've met quite a few people that have done tandem skydives and felt fine, but froze up scared when they did their first non-tandem skydive where they knew they'd have to deal with everything themselves.
I do flight testing. Let me tell you there is a HUGE difference between video games and real life.
And by Huge, I mean spending a god awful walking up and down a runway looking for potential FOD.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Seriously? If you have several variables (as you claim) and observe no meaningful changes in the brain cancer rate it leaves you with the following outcomes:
1. Some radio waves DO cause cancer, but some radio waves also decrease it at the exact same rate, and those counteracting radio waves interacted just enough to cause the results of the study to indicate that the original waves which may or may not have been causing cancer to be cancelled out at just the right times.
2. Radio Waves do cause cancer, but something new introduced at exactly the same time is counteracting that. This new 'thing' must have occured and been adopted at the same rate as cell phones.
3. Radio Waves do not cause brain cancer.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
Close but not quite. Incomplete knowledge of the contents increases a person's desire to hear it. I have a musician friend who I cannot sit and listen to music with, because as soon as the song plays he skips it. He already has the song committed to memory and does not need to experience it any more.
I do that all the time. It drives my wife nuts. I'll typically listen to a few seconds, recall the song and then jump to the next one. I suppose it is weird, but I could do that for hours and I get a great deal of enjoyment out of it.
I'll pay attention next time to see if I do it more often with classics or pop music. Right now I'd guess it's about 50/50, but I wonder if that's the case.
Of what worth is his word?
Never trust a law to not permit something if it doesn't forbid it. If it grants someone the power to do something, even if they have no intention of using it, they will use it eventually.
I'm sorry buddy, I'm European. The word "love" was for me to indicated a warmhearted felt appreciation for new information and a decent upgrade in knowledge which I anticipate to start in 4-5 hours. I don't consider that a problem.
4-5 hours is good, because doesn't it take some time for those ED treatments to kick in?
Lithium production.
So there are no other countries in the world that can do Lithium production? At least it is a good thing that China has earned all that IP goodwill so that no one would copy their processes.
Ship it back to the manufacturer if you want to make a statement. Corporate HQ is probably the best since they don't have the on site means/processes for disposal.
I don't know.
Something that is sensitive enough to determine if there is someone who is slightly breathing is probably going to be negatively affected by the movement involved in a house burning down.
So I encourage everyone to post nothing but noise.
Everything I post is a lie.
So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.
I have over 100 friends on facebook.
My clearance investigation took 2 months. Do you really think that they investigate everyone 'friended' in facebook?
My closest friends don't even have Facebook accounts. For them to investigate EVERYONE you friended on facebook, they are really wasting their resources and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what Facebook is.
And 100 friends on facebook is very few. I could easily add the recommended friends and rack up a few hundred more.
While your post is a bit off the wall, you are falling into a trap.
Do NOT rely on the fact that limited manpower is somehow a justification for a breach of your rights. In other words, just because something is not possible now, doesn't mean that we should grant them the power to do it.
It's the same problem whenever someone asks for powers to be 'future-proof'. That term is simply an excuse for 'We don't have the public support or justification for that power, but don't worry we can't physically do it. ...yet'
.
.
.
.
.
What a dumb law. If the guy in front of you is going the speed limit, then from a strictly letter-of-the-law viewpoint, why do you need to be able to pass him? So you can get in front of him and continue going the speed limit? If he's going slower than the speed limit (far more of a hazard than speeding, by the way), then just by going the speed limit you'd overtake him. What's the point of building in an exception like that?
So you can minimize the time that the cars spend side by side. It is safer to pass a car quickly.
In your situation, if the person were driving 54 and the speed limit was 55, you could only pass him at a 1MPH differential. That will put you in the passing lane (or the oncoming traffice lane) for a longer period than if you simply accelerated to 65, passed, and then decelerated to 55 after you put a safe margin between you and the car you just passed.
You aren't just passing the car, you are passing the car AND the safe distance in front of the car.
If you are going above 100, you have NO business being in any other lane than the "passing lane".
Pretending you drive for NASCAR is what causes accidents. Not grannies loitering in the passing lane.
If you are in the passing lane and not passing, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, if you are cruising in the passing lane you are wrong.
Really...$100k to remove seti from 5000 machines? ...because I *REALLY* want that job. It's an hour of scripting and a few days (at most) to test. Push it out over a weekend, run an inventory...follow up on the few failures.
If that is all it would take, you would probably be ok with $5k. However, I'm willing to bet that this isn't like some University where they have 5000 machines all in the same configuration. You are probably dealing with machines that were purchased in lots of 50-100 at most. Even assuming that you could group that script/test approach to 3 lots at a time, you are still looking at sixteen cycles at best.
16 * $5000 = 80,000
So 100,000 isn't that jawdropping.
If we were dealing with something like a University's computer labs, I'd agree with you, even if every machine had to be reimaged it shouldn't be too monumental of a task. In fact, if it were a situation like that, I'd probably just work the removal into the next configuration release and thus eliminate a huge portion of that cost since we would be doing the work on each machine anyway.
Cheating?
Not when you have it on cause your sound is off and you are trying to click softely because you don't want to wake your newborn ;)
I'm guessing that the law there is similar to the US in which you really can't do much about a law until it actually impacts you. I'm not sure I'm happy with that situation, in that some poor soul (or souls) has to effectively be martyred before the 'protections' kick in.
Or is this case simply one of two laws which contradict each other?
That's how I found out. People thought I was kidding when I said I couldn't read the ishihara tests.
It's a bitch of a disability too, I've had many job opportunities pulled from me because of it, and the misunderstanding of what color blindness actually is.
Why is that a problem? Because the government doesn't consider color blindness a real disability. Increasing numbers of jobs tack on 'normal color vision' into their job descriptions because some person up the chain thought it would be a good thing to toss in.
I once had to fight for my job as a test engineer because I worked with aircraft. Naturally the government decided that since it dealt with aircraft, you had to have normal color vision. Because you know how important color vision is when testing god damned communication links.
I had to go to vision specialists to 'prove' that I could do my job. It took 2 months to get everything sorted out.
Too many people don't understand what this disability is, and think it is ok to just slap the 'normal color vision' requirement into a job without actually considering what that means.
You are correct that some rights are inalienable.
However, such is not the case in this situation. For example:
I may rent my vehicle to you and state that you are ONLY allowed to use this vehicle to drive yourself to the hospital in a medical emergency. You would not be allowed to drive this vehicle to go vote.
Or I could sell you a cell phone which only calls 911 or the local police station.
Simply because I am not permitting you to exercise your right through a service does not automatically imply that I am not permitting you from exercising your right at all.
You know that Occam is cutting himself in his grave right now, don't you? Along the wrists.
Is the theory that some bored telecom guy collected this data more complicated than the government collecting this data? In fact, it is quite possible and likely that SEVERAL sources have this pager data.
We have actual evidence of people collecting data on open WIFI spots, it shouldn't be surprising that someone might have collected this data for any number of purposes.
Actually, that's not "good enough" because it does not protect your data from fire or theft damage. Clearly, you are not in IT.
Clearly, you know what is best for me and my data.
It is 'good enough' protection because the customer is ME and it is MY data.
1. The safe is fireproof and waterproof. (Fire protection)
2. The safe is a safe (Theft protection).
3. The safe is not in my house (no single point of failure)
Tell me again how what I deem is good enough for my data isn't good enough for my needs? Just how critical is MY data? Since you seem to know what is good enough, how much should I spend to protect it?
Do you even know what it is I am storing? Will it take me 1 hour to recreate it or is it not able to be reproduced? Is it simply a copy of my favorited websites, or the deed to my house?
Sorry to sound a bit snappy with this, but I'm not trying to solve the worlds IT problems here.
I'm not one to rely on Google completely, but I do use it as a 'buffer' with respect to my backups.
I am NOT an IT guy, I just play one on TV (and to my family). Unfortunately you are making broad assumptions about what is 'better' for the vast majority of people. The issue that some of these people are worried about isn't just the reliability/integrity of these services, but that there won't be some sort of intentional 'mistake' with your data.
My backup system is primitive. Every so often I take all of my important documents and mirror them on DVDs which go into my safe. With the rate at which HD space is increasing, I generally have all of my old data sitting on my live computer, with 3 month DVD mirrors in my safe.
Honestly, for my data, that's good enough. If my live disk fails, I have DVDs (at most 3-6 months old) and if the DVDs spontaneously combust, my live disk is probably still working. Google is my buffer in between. It sits there in case both my DVDs and my disk fail at the same time and I have a solid belief that the most important stuff will still be there.
I just get worried that something I have may be inspected and determined to be 'infringing' something or 'offensive' and automatically deleted.
I just don't see the cloud completely replacing even my rudimentary backup system, enhancing it perhaps, but certainly not replacing it.
Of course, the irony is that I'm setting up a storage server which will be hosting data from my entire extended family. (basic network storage) In essence, I'm going to be the cloud to them.
But it lets users abuse the network
Bittorrent?
I like to abuse my network by complaining how slow it is to responding to my requests for pictures of sandwiches and how much space its old equipment takes up. I always threaten to keep it off the surge protector or knock it off the shelf so I can get a nice new slim model with all the bells and whistles.