It is disturbing that the US seems to dislike Russia simply for being Russia.
I used to think that the US disliked Russia because it was communist - but it hasn't been communist for 25 years+ now and the US still seems to assume instnctively that it is an enemy - whilst states that are much further from US values such as Saudi Arabia are regarded as allies.
Thus is ironic because the terrorism that has most affected the US originated in Saudi Arabia.
So while there is a disconnect between the states /ideologies that actually sponsor terrorism and those that the US blames for it then there is no chance of any progress and the "war on terror" cannot end.
It really does help if you take on the right target.
In other words a disregard for proper safety practices for commercial advantage leading to many deaths amongst members of the public. ISDS certainly does promote that.
this question always happens: "Don't you feel a moral obligation to keep people from using it for human trafficking?" Er, it's useful software; if others use it for bad, we can't stop that. [Auto makers aren't liable for drunk drivers either.
To be more precise - the person who invented the automobile isn't liable.
it's curious that The Heritage Foundation is desperate to preserve a system that gives foreign investors such a powerful weapon to use against America.
Except that - on past form - the US will simply ignore any ruling it believes to be against its interests.
The history of EU/US trade relations suggests that the EU will do likewise.
In fact no major country will ever follow the court/tribunal if it feels it can get away with it. In those cases where nations do end up following the judgements the court/tribunal amounts to no more than a formalisation of the mechanisms of international diplomatic pressure that would have applied anyway.
Neither the new "court" nor any ISDS mechanism will have any impact at all - part from the money wasted in paying for the people, buildings etc involved.
Re: I think the UK Goverment played the record companies
It seems to me the long game for taking the case to court was to get a levy on blank media.
and - paradoxically - it may have failed in that respect - since it seems that the government will not pursue the matter - every cloud has a silver lining...
That never stopped anyone before 2014 when it was still "illegal" so why should this ruling change anything?
By definition private copying of the sort that was made legal is effectively undetectable.
The really disturbing thing about this is that the government hasn't appealed it - when they appeal every case when they are opposing the public - eg this one about the snooper's charter.
The UK public ought to wake up to how stupid it was to kick out the LIb Dems and give the Tories a free rein.
The position on both these cases would be reversed otherwise.
He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
"Look at video games," King said during the segment. "Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence."
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.
They lump all of the money together, take out their cut (of course) and then distribute the rest to the top x
To be fair - this is true in the US - but in other parts of the world (eg UK) the money is distributed to everyone. This does create something of a bureaucratic nightmare, however, and most still get only very small sums.
Most musicians don't make a living, period. That has always been the case.
And always will be the case under any conceivable regime.
The reason is simple - any change to the financial arrangements for musicians that makes making a living easier will simply suck more people in to try to make a living until the former state (in which most musicians can't earn enough) is restored. There is an inexhaustible supply of competent amateur musicians just waiting for the opportunity.
It is a simple fact of economics - any activity which many people enjoy doing for free will always have a large group who are able to make some money from doing it - but not enough to live on.
Hmm - when I read this I thought - surely, since the patent has expired - anyone could now make such a toy. The I realised - Marvel/Disney owns the Spiderman copyright - and they will use that to prevent competition. Maybe the inventor should have argued that the contract effectively exchanged a share of the patent with a share of the copyright - and hence the contract should not expire until BOTH had ended.
If he didn't wite the contract that way then hwe should have.
And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
Yes - but it only works when you are preaching to the converted - because those who don't accept your point won't accept your meaning of the word.
The problem I have is that although I totally agree with the underlying point you are trying to make I think it is foolish to hang the argument on a meaning of a word that is not generally accepted. That way you antagonise not just the people who disagree with your point - but also those who agree with your point but are unaware of or dislike your use of words. How can that be a good strategy?
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change.
Yes that is true - although many dictionaries seem to make them the same.
In any case the difference is not your difference. I would say that the difference is that an invention is a change that required some effort to make and gives a positive technical improvement whereas an innovation is simply any change large or trivial, good or bad. This is quite close to the reverse of your version.
Also the medieval meaning where innovation==heresy is a really inconvenient for your point, in fact it plays into the hands of your opponents, and the legacy of that meaning still persists in many minds and will continue to do so because old documents that use the word that way.
In every field outside of economics/business the extra baggage of your interpretation of the word is meaningless and so the word will continue to be used simply to denote any change no matter how mainstream the technical/business world becomes.
Innovation is creating something that people want.
This is a recent re-definition of the word that is not universally accepted.
In any old dictionary the two words mean the same
The meaning you are referring to was invented originally by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter - and may have become commonly understood amongst econiomists - but to the rest of the world innovation and invention are differentiated by the fact that invention requires some kind of effort whereas an innovation can be any arbitrary change in an established pattern. Most dictionaries still agree with me on this point.
In short the use of the word innovation in this sense is itself an innovation - but not one that I (and many other people) want.
I agree totally with the sentiment that you are trying to convey, that there is an important difference between creating something new and creating something new AND useful/desirable but I think it is simply confusing to try to hijack the English language to the cause.
Please try and find a word that really already means what you want and stop confusing people and creating false conflict with economists jargon.
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: Re: No
I used to think that the US disliked Russia because it was communist - but it hasn't been communist for 25 years+ now and the US still seems to assume instnctively that it is an enemy - whilst states that are much further from US values such as Saudi Arabia are regarded as allies.
Thus is ironic because the terrorism that has most affected the US originated in Saudi Arabia.
So while there is a disconnect between the states /ideologies that actually sponsor terrorism and those that the US blames for it then there is no chance of any progress and the "war on terror" cannot end.
It really does help if you take on the right target.
On the post: EU Proposes To Reform Corporate Sovereignty Slightly; US Think Tank Goes Into Panic Mode
Re:
What it supports is "Free Enterprise" as in the "Herald of Free Enterprise"
In other words a disregard for proper safety practices for commercial advantage leading to many deaths amongst members of the public. ISDS certainly does promote that.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
To be more precise - the person who invented the automobile isn't liable.
On the post: EU Proposes To Reform Corporate Sovereignty Slightly; US Think Tank Goes Into Panic Mode
US
Except that - on past form - the US will simply ignore any ruling it believes to be against its interests.
The history of EU/US trade relations suggests that the EU will do likewise.
In fact no major country will ever follow the court/tribunal if it feels it can get away with it. In those cases where nations do end up following the judgements the court/tribunal amounts to no more than a formalisation of the mechanisms of international diplomatic pressure that would have applied anyway.
Neither the new "court" nor any ISDS mechanism will have any impact at all - part from the money wasted in paying for the people, buildings etc involved.
On the post: UK High Court Goes Even Further In Emphasizing That You Cannot Rip Your Own CDs
Re: I think the UK Goverment played the record companies
and - paradoxically - it may have failed in that respect - since it seems that the government will not pursue the matter - every cloud has a silver lining...
On the post: UK High Court Goes Even Further In Emphasizing That You Cannot Rip Your Own CDs
Re: Re: Re: If you don't own it, why buy it?
On the post: UK High Court Goes Even Further In Emphasizing That You Cannot Rip Your Own CDs
Re: Re:
That never stopped anyone before 2014 when it was still "illegal" so why should this ruling change anything?
By definition private copying of the sort that was made legal is effectively undetectable.
The really disturbing thing about this is that the government hasn't appealed it - when they appeal every case when they are opposing the public - eg this one about the snooper's charter.
The UK public ought to wake up to how stupid it was to kick out the LIb Dems and give the Tories a free rein.
The position on both these cases would be reversed otherwise.
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Re: Re: Re:
He said
He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Re:
And it is so easy to fall into this trap that even Timothy Geigner has done it himself to some extent.
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
More violence
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.
On the post: And, Of Course, UK Law Enforcement ALSO Using Cell Tower Spoofers, Refusing To Talk About Them
Name
On the post: And, Of Course, UK Law Enforcement ALSO Using Cell Tower Spoofers, Refusing To Talk About Them
The other side
The "other side" in this case being the general public!
He needs an attitude transplant.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Still only to the 'top' though [Re: Terri]
To be fair - this is true in the US - but in other parts of the world (eg UK) the money is distributed to everyone. This does create something of a bureaucratic nightmare, however, and most still get only very small sums.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Most musicians don't make a living
And always will be the case under any conceivable regime.
The reason is simple - any change to the financial arrangements for musicians that makes making a living easier will simply suck more people in to try to make a living until the former state (in which most musicians can't earn enough) is restored.
There is an inexhaustible supply of competent amateur musicians just waiting for the opportunity.
It is a simple fact of economics - any activity which many people enjoy doing for free will always have a large group who are able to make some money from doing it - but not enough to live on.
On the post: YouTube's Inane Response To Handing Popular YouTuber's Channel To Cosmetics Company: Blame The Algorithms
Re: Re: So we're back to the feudal era...
Great wealth and power is never earned - give me one counter example.
On the post: Supreme Court Quotes Spiderman's 'Great Power, Great Responsibility' Line In Rejecting Royalties On Expired Patent
Re: Tying Expired Patents to Unexpired Copyrights.
On the post: Supreme Court Quotes Spiderman's 'Great Power, Great Responsibility' Line In Rejecting Royalties On Expired Patent
Re:
Maybe the inventor should have argued that the contract effectively exchanged a share of the patent with a share of the copyright - and hence the contract should not expire until BOTH had ended.
If he didn't wite the contract that way then hwe should have.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uber
Yes - but it only works when you are preaching to the converted - because those who don't accept your point won't accept your meaning of the word.
The problem I have is that although I totally agree with the underlying point you are trying to make I think it is foolish to hang the argument on a meaning of a word that is not generally accepted. That way you antagonise not just the people who disagree with your point - but also those who agree with your point but are unaware of or dislike your use of words. How can that be a good strategy?
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change.
Yes that is true - although many dictionaries seem to make them the same.
In any case the difference is not your difference. I would say that the difference is that an invention is a change that required some effort to make and gives a positive technical improvement whereas an innovation is simply any change large or trivial, good or bad. This is quite close to the reverse of your version.
Also the medieval meaning where innovation==heresy is a really inconvenient for your point, in fact it plays into the hands of your opponents, and the legacy of that meaning still persists in many minds and will continue to do so because old documents that use the word that way.
In every field outside of economics/business the extra baggage of your interpretation of the word is meaningless and so the word will continue to be used simply to denote any change no matter how mainstream the technical/business world becomes.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Uber
This is a recent re-definition of the word that is not universally accepted.
In any old dictionary the two words mean the same
The meaning you are referring to was invented originally by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter - and may have become commonly understood amongst econiomists - but to the rest of the world innovation and invention are differentiated by the fact that invention requires some kind of effort whereas an innovation can be any arbitrary change in an established pattern. Most dictionaries still agree with me on this point.
In short the use of the word innovation in this sense is itself an innovation - but not one that I (and many other people) want.
I agree totally with the sentiment that you are trying to convey, that there is an important difference between creating something new and creating something new AND useful/desirable but I think it is simply confusing to try to hijack the English language to the cause.
Please try and find a word that really already means what you want and stop confusing people and creating false conflict with economists jargon.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Biometrics
Not all biometrics are the same.
In particular the live signature biometric.
(Where you sign your name on a pad and it records not just the signature - but how you did it)
This is unique, changeable and the signing process can't be public - although the result can be.
On a trip to Norway last week I saw a terminal. that was enabled for this process - so it does exist.
Next >>