Oh, to find a way to put people in government positions with the character to own up to their mistakes, even publicly, at the time they find out that a mistake was made and have no thought of retribution for those who bring forth the facts. That brings to mind the idea of not letting anyone who wants to be in politics, be in politics. Now how do we get that started?
"All I can see happening is that businesses stop hiring people in jurisdictions with such laws because it would be too risky."
Then those businesses would have nothing, or much less, to sell. There is little reason that there couldn't be some standardized way to protect the company while both recognizing and compensating the creators. For example, we might say that the creators retain the patent, the license is automatic for employed persons who create on company time, and some X part of ongoing royalties revert to the creators.
I recognize that the company has expenses in providing the creators with resources in order to do their creating, and don't want to remove their ability to recoup their investment, nor to profit. And those resources may be a reason creators don't do certain creating in their garage. But the company didn't do the creating, and the company will want ongoing creations. Providing recognition, and financial rewards to the actual creators, could help.
"Therefore, all those who say that "a vote which is not for either Republican or Democrat is wasted" is a part of the problem also!"
Yes it is. But until we change the system to make it either no parties, or in some other way where third or fourth party votes are not meaningless. Those involved with creating our republic argued about whether to have political parties, or not. Well including them was the choice, and the experiment has run. We now have conclusive evidence that that experiment failed.
The problem we now face is that the duopoly of parties are so entrenched (and in position to heavily impact any changes) they will protect their incumbency to the last vestige of power they can muster. Another help will be to remove money from politics, but there are ongoing, paid for incentives that prevent that action as well.
We need people with integrity in place before any appropriate changes can happen, or we need to find another way to refresh the tree of liberty.
I mention the employment contracts because if we are to take Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 to heart there is little incentive for the creators. Typical remuneration does not compare with the value (economic) of the things created. Now I realize that not all creations are done for economic purposes, but by assuming the patent/copyright of the 'employed' person, the enterprise also takes away their recognition.
I concur. In your suggested revamp of copyright law (I would extend this to include patents, but not trademarks as they are different) to include (along with a reduction in length) a statement that IP, both the copyright and patents, are not transferable. They may be licensed, as in an author might sell a license to a publishing company to print and promote their book for some limited time which is less than the copyright length, but that is the only right transferred.
I would also state that the creation of IP, even as works for hire, belongs to the creator and that employment contracts can merely give the employing company the right purchase a limited license for that IP, above and beyond normal compensation. Of course there will be outcry that this reduces incentive for companies to hire writers, or engineers, or musicians, etc. but the application of this rule would only mean it costs them a bit more money while incentivising the actual creators. The companies will still want the creations, they will just have less control than they do now.
If they were to let every actually knowledgeable person express the reality of the situation it could be detrimental to their economic plans. They have extracted nearly two Trillion Dollars from Congress and probably have some very specific ideas on how to channel that money (specifically who gets to benefit with some small portion being cover for the larger portions).
What the CDC could tell us is how to protect ourselves, what progress is being made on what fronts, their best guess of future timelines updated as new information is learned, and more importantly what help they think would be most beneficial in curbing the crisis. Mixed messages don't herd the masses in the right direction effectively, there's an election coming.
But the administration thinks that the only message we will hear if knowledgeable people are allow to speak is (I am reminded of the choir from the Harry Potter movies) "Something wicked this way comes!" which will drown out the message that the whole thing is a hoax. But here take this medicine because the Non-Doctor in Chief truly believes in its efficacy, and that that palliative is all we need, other than wisely expending (or pocketing) that almost two Trillion Dollar gift from Congress.
Just make sure that your phone calls to the money managers where you give them the insider point of view are made from an assortment of pay phones (if you can find any) and that you use a previously agreed upon set of code words. There are some even more nefarious ways to disguise your phone calls (for example, hire a homeless person to purchase a couple of dozen pay as you go cell phones from a couple of dozen vendors, a risk in itself (make sure you wipe your prints from the phone before you throw it away)), but the more complicated those tactics are the greater the possibility for error.
For example, there is one Senator who's husband runs the NY Stock Exchange who is going to have a hard time convincing people that between her classified briefings and his close relationships with many, many corporations and the daily variations of the exchange itself actually had no insider information when they made significant trades. The sense of self security is much different than actual security, and sometimes exposure can be excoriating.
But good luck to you, I recommend burying it in the back yard. The only problems with that is that you earn no interest and inflation is against you. There is also the possibility that your or your neighbors dogs might take some interest, and dig it up.
Well thank you, but I don't believe I was looking for any video. While I don't have time to listen to that Ted Talk (which are generally good things to listen to) the title tells us that rounded corners are not something people should be litigating about, something we already knew about.
The thing that concerns us now is how do we go about getting IP laws to relate more to the precepts dictated by the Constitution (see Section 8 Clause 8), and less about the regulatory capture achieved by the IP industry.
According to the RIAA and MPAA, it is costing more than that. Of course they are delusional and speaking in their own interest (magnifying the potential income for their agenda).
What they never want mentioned in public, anywhere, is the marketing value of the 'piracy'. There is nothing worse than no one talking about your IP, whereas those 'pirates' are creating public awareness of the IP that would not have existed had it not been 'pirated'. See a number of Techdirt resources that explain that position. What they, the IP 'owners', disdain hearing is 'I never heard of that movie, song, book, etc., and are using regulatory capture and incessant proactiveness with the laws they have gotten passed to protect their, not the public's, interest.
That is an interesting question. Even though 'enacted' by a law, could those best practices be challenged as not law? When presented in courts, can the defense go on and on about how those so called 'best practices' are not in fact law and therefore cannot be applied as law? How about the defense shows how a 'best practice' is not in fact a best practice. How about the defense showing that the 'best practices' imposed by a singularity such as the Attorney General, who actually knows nothing about 'best practices', are gifts to the organizations that paid to get his boss elected?
I could go on, but unlike regulatory agencies who are required to have comment periods prior to rule making, it appears that these 'best practices' will be imposed by fiat.
To the filters, it's all the same, tone deaf and without context
Shame on Dr. David Johnson for using the same notes and expressions that appear in the sheet music, that were also used by Arthur Grumiaux working from the same sheet music. He should have been more 'creative' rather than expressing Bach's intent. Good thing they can't pass liability to the instructors that taught Dr. Johnson how to read music and play the violin.
This may be overly pessimistic, or maybe not, and we may have to wait a month or more, but it will be interesting to see if Verizon charges their regular monthly fees for postponed new installations, or postponed repairs where service was interrupted. The orders were placed, after all.
"a cooperative, global shift in media literacy and critical thinking -- combined with mass collaboration between governments, platforms, academics, and users"
OK, all of you who are collaborating with the government, line up on the right, thank you, both of you. And those of you who are practicing critical thinking without a license line up on the left, thank you, all twelve of you. The rest of you are supposed to be observing social distancing, so go home, stay 6 feet away from your loved ones, and don't breath.
Given that, for example, NYC is looking to 'draft' doctors from other parts of the country and others are stating that they lack medical professionals, they would be glad to pick up anyone HCA fires for these petty, self serving rules. The downside is continued employment after the crisis dies down, though I suspect that there are more opportunities for employment for medical professionals than there are medical professionals. The economics might be different, but that is not the same as unemployment.
I wonder how HCA would react if every one of their medical professionals blatantly violated this policy? Would they really fire everyone? If they didn't, how would they justify the difference between those who were, and those who weren't?
From the school of no wasted seconds, ICU out there
Industry is taking it cues from the government. The surveillance state that is now being bolstered by the new 'pandemic bad' excuse puts the government in the position of being gigantic big brother, while the corporatist's are emulating that trend and becoming medium big brothers. It won't be long before this supporting role is incorporated by the giant.
Micromanagement is a course I have never seen in a business school catalog, but I bet there are shelves and shelves of books along the lines of '17 most paranoid micromanagement techniques and how to implement them'.
Your right. The premise that 5G will supply choirs of singing angels is complete nonsense. Everybody already know that the choir is made up of unicorns in the soprano section, hippogriff's in the alto section, leprechauns in the tenor section, gnomes in the baritone section and trolls making up the bass section.
Singing angels, bah. Where do they get these crazy ideas.
On the post: Brave Whistleblowers Are Being Punished For Saving Lives During A Pandemic
Integrity in Politics, seriously not joking
Oh, to find a way to put people in government positions with the character to own up to their mistakes, even publicly, at the time they find out that a mistake was made and have no thought of retribution for those who bring forth the facts. That brings to mind the idea of not letting anyone who wants to be in politics, be in politics. Now how do we get that started?
On the post: Trump Campaign Actually Sues TV Station Over Anti-Trump Ad
Re: 'Now, on to the discovery phase and- hey, where you going?'
I don't they they plan to, or expect to win. This, as is said in the article, is merely a PR stunt.
On the post: Happy Birthday, Statute of Anne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then those businesses would have nothing, or much less, to sell. There is little reason that there couldn't be some standardized way to protect the company while both recognizing and compensating the creators. For example, we might say that the creators retain the patent, the license is automatic for employed persons who create on company time, and some X part of ongoing royalties revert to the creators.
I recognize that the company has expenses in providing the creators with resources in order to do their creating, and don't want to remove their ability to recoup their investment, nor to profit. And those resources may be a reason creators don't do certain creating in their garage. But the company didn't do the creating, and the company will want ongoing creations. Providing recognition, and financial rewards to the actual creators, could help.
On the post: Want To Know Why U.S. Broadband Is A Bad Joke? Take a Close Look at Frontier Communications
Re: We all forget...
Yes it is. But until we change the system to make it either no parties, or in some other way where third or fourth party votes are not meaningless. Those involved with creating our republic argued about whether to have political parties, or not. Well including them was the choice, and the experiment has run. We now have conclusive evidence that that experiment failed.
The problem we now face is that the duopoly of parties are so entrenched (and in position to heavily impact any changes) they will protect their incumbency to the last vestige of power they can muster. Another help will be to remove money from politics, but there are ongoing, paid for incentives that prevent that action as well.
We need people with integrity in place before any appropriate changes can happen, or we need to find another way to refresh the tree of liberty.
On the post: Happy Birthday, Statute of Anne
Re: Re: Re:
I mention the employment contracts because if we are to take Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 to heart there is little incentive for the creators. Typical remuneration does not compare with the value (economic) of the things created. Now I realize that not all creations are done for economic purposes, but by assuming the patent/copyright of the 'employed' person, the enterprise also takes away their recognition.
On the post: Happy Birthday, Statute of Anne
Re:
I concur. In your suggested revamp of copyright law (I would extend this to include patents, but not trademarks as they are different) to include (along with a reduction in length) a statement that IP, both the copyright and patents, are not transferable. They may be licensed, as in an author might sell a license to a publishing company to print and promote their book for some limited time which is less than the copyright length, but that is the only right transferred.
I would also state that the creation of IP, even as works for hire, belongs to the creator and that employment contracts can merely give the employing company the right purchase a limited license for that IP, above and beyond normal compensation. Of course there will be outcry that this reduces incentive for companies to hire writers, or engineers, or musicians, etc. but the application of this rule would only mean it costs them a bit more money while incentivising the actual creators. The companies will still want the creations, they will just have less control than they do now.
On the post: Knight First Amendment Institute Sues The CDC For Failing To Provide Details Of Its Media Gag Order
Re:
I think he might be referencing the 1980's TV show called Knight Rider with David Hasselhoff and a talking car.
On the post: Knight First Amendment Institute Sues The CDC For Failing To Provide Details Of Its Media Gag Order
Re: Re: What the Administration fears
I'm aware.
On the post: Knight First Amendment Institute Sues The CDC For Failing To Provide Details Of Its Media Gag Order
What the Administration fears
If they were to let every actually knowledgeable person express the reality of the situation it could be detrimental to their economic plans. They have extracted nearly two Trillion Dollars from Congress and probably have some very specific ideas on how to channel that money (specifically who gets to benefit with some small portion being cover for the larger portions).
What the CDC could tell us is how to protect ourselves, what progress is being made on what fronts, their best guess of future timelines updated as new information is learned, and more importantly what help they think would be most beneficial in curbing the crisis. Mixed messages don't herd the masses in the right direction effectively, there's an election coming.
But the administration thinks that the only message we will hear if knowledgeable people are allow to speak is (I am reminded of the choir from the Harry Potter movies) "Something wicked this way comes!" which will drown out the message that the whole thing is a hoax. But here take this medicine because the Non-Doctor in Chief truly believes in its efficacy, and that that palliative is all we need, other than wisely expending (or pocketing) that almost two Trillion Dollar gift from Congress.
On the post: Senator Loeffler, Already Accused Of Pandemic Insider Trading, Will Convert All Individual Stock Holdings To Managed Funds
Re:
Just make sure that your phone calls to the money managers where you give them the insider point of view are made from an assortment of pay phones (if you can find any) and that you use a previously agreed upon set of code words. There are some even more nefarious ways to disguise your phone calls (for example, hire a homeless person to purchase a couple of dozen pay as you go cell phones from a couple of dozen vendors, a risk in itself (make sure you wipe your prints from the phone before you throw it away)), but the more complicated those tactics are the greater the possibility for error.
For example, there is one Senator who's husband runs the NY Stock Exchange who is going to have a hard time convincing people that between her classified briefings and his close relationships with many, many corporations and the daily variations of the exchange itself actually had no insider information when they made significant trades. The sense of self security is much different than actual security, and sometimes exposure can be excoriating.
But good luck to you, I recommend burying it in the back yard. The only problems with that is that you earn no interest and inflation is against you. There is also the possibility that your or your neighbors dogs might take some interest, and dig it up.
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well thank you, but I don't believe I was looking for any video. While I don't have time to listen to that Ted Talk (which are generally good things to listen to) the title tells us that rounded corners are not something people should be litigating about, something we already knew about.
The thing that concerns us now is how do we go about getting IP laws to relate more to the precepts dictated by the Constitution (see Section 8 Clause 8), and less about the regulatory capture achieved by the IP industry.
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Re: Re:
According to the RIAA and MPAA, it is costing more than that. Of course they are delusional and speaking in their own interest (magnifying the potential income for their agenda).
What they never want mentioned in public, anywhere, is the marketing value of the 'piracy'. There is nothing worse than no one talking about your IP, whereas those 'pirates' are creating public awareness of the IP that would not have existed had it not been 'pirated'. See a number of Techdirt resources that explain that position. What they, the IP 'owners', disdain hearing is 'I never heard of that movie, song, book, etc., and are using regulatory capture and incessant proactiveness with the laws they have gotten passed to protect their, not the public's, interest.
On the post: The EARN IT Act Creates A New Moderator's Dilemma
Re:
That is an interesting question. Even though 'enacted' by a law, could those best practices be challenged as not law? When presented in courts, can the defense go on and on about how those so called 'best practices' are not in fact law and therefore cannot be applied as law? How about the defense shows how a 'best practice' is not in fact a best practice. How about the defense showing that the 'best practices' imposed by a singularity such as the Attorney General, who actually knows nothing about 'best practices', are gifts to the organizations that paid to get his boss elected?
I could go on, but unlike regulatory agencies who are required to have comment periods prior to rule making, it appears that these 'best practices' will be imposed by fiat.
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
To the filters, it's all the same, tone deaf and without context
Shame on Dr. David Johnson for using the same notes and expressions that appear in the sheet music, that were also used by Arthur Grumiaux working from the same sheet music. He should have been more 'creative' rather than expressing Bach's intent. Good thing they can't pass liability to the instructors that taught Dr. Johnson how to read music and play the violin.
/s
On the post: Verizon Quietly Stops Doing Broadband Installs, Repairs During COVID-19
Only time will tell
This may be overly pessimistic, or maybe not, and we may have to wait a month or more, but it will be interesting to see if Verizon charges their regular monthly fees for postponed new installations, or postponed repairs where service was interrupted. The orders were placed, after all.
On the post: FTC Just Sent Over $1 Million To People Scammed By 'Patent Marketing' Company The Former AG Matt Whitaker Was Involved With
Looking at the history of the Appointer in Chief
I have no questions. None at all.
On the post: It Will Take A Hell Of A Lot More Than Whatsapp Tweaks To Fix Our Global Disinformation Problem
Re:
OK, all of you who are collaborating with the government, line up on the right, thank you, both of you. And those of you who are practicing critical thinking without a license line up on the left, thank you, all twelve of you. The rest of you are supposed to be observing social distancing, so go home, stay 6 feet away from your loved ones, and don't breath.
On the post: Largest Hospital System In The US Threatens To Fire Doctors & Nurses For Telling The Truth About COVID-19 Disaster
Mum's the word
Given that, for example, NYC is looking to 'draft' doctors from other parts of the country and others are stating that they lack medical professionals, they would be glad to pick up anyone HCA fires for these petty, self serving rules. The downside is continued employment after the crisis dies down, though I suspect that there are more opportunities for employment for medical professionals than there are medical professionals. The economics might be different, but that is not the same as unemployment.
I wonder how HCA would react if every one of their medical professionals blatantly violated this policy? Would they really fire everyone? If they didn't, how would they justify the difference between those who were, and those who weren't?
On the post: Another Coronavirus Side Effect: In-Home Surveillance By Remote Workers' Employers
From the school of no wasted seconds, ICU out there
Industry is taking it cues from the government. The surveillance state that is now being bolstered by the new 'pandemic bad' excuse puts the government in the position of being gigantic big brother, while the corporatist's are emulating that trend and becoming medium big brothers. It won't be long before this supporting role is incorporated by the giant.
Micromanagement is a course I have never seen in a business school catalog, but I bet there are shelves and shelves of books along the lines of '17 most paranoid micromanagement techniques and how to implement them'.
On the post: Jon Cusack The Latest Celebrity To Spread Nonsense About 5G
Re: What else should we conclude?
Your right. The premise that 5G will supply choirs of singing angels is complete nonsense. Everybody already know that the choir is made up of unicorns in the soprano section, hippogriff's in the alto section, leprechauns in the tenor section, gnomes in the baritone section and trolls making up the bass section.
Singing angels, bah. Where do they get these crazy ideas.
Next >>