"right leaning centrist"? Uhm, no. Not even that. I'd call that "authoritarian" and "prohibitionist". Oh, and far to the right also: http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
As a crossbowman, I can tell you... all those puny crossbows you see on TV probably are not strong enough to pierce a head over any distance. If you can draw it by hand, it might enter a skull, but sure as hell the bolt won't come out on the other side. And for piercing helmets, you'll need a crossbow that's operated by cranquin or winch.
As a swordsman, I can tell you, all swords drawn on TV sound the same kind of wrong, and sword fights are never portrayed accurately.
And why wouldn't it happen in a free economy? I don't see any hindrance there, except of course, that the government decided to outsource something it shouldn't have in the first place, and which it could only outsource because the lax privacy laws allowed it.
If private data about citizens is kept private, a company can't just "do background checks", because it won't get any. So the government has to do it itself. Which it should do anyway, because this is about clearances to secrets.
Which brings me to another point: classifying is completely broken. If you need 2 million people with "secret" clearances (and those people need them, lest they can't do their jobs), there is something seriously wrong with what _the people_ allow the government to "classify".
Overclassification is the enemy. The solution is to be transparent, and if you're embarrassed about blatantly fostering the agenda of the MPAA via your consulates, then don't friggin do it!
Re: This blatant bias in the media is increasingly common
Totally. And if the case is clear cut in the other way, they always manage to find some nutcase to argue it, in the name of "unbiased reporting".
Happens in the US with evolution or global warming.
To the point where actually a majority thinks the nutcases are right, in spite of all science.
It's starting in Europe too, but the public is not yet that indoctrinated. Most people here think creationists and global warming deniers are total wackos (about the same as people believing in UFOs).
I'd suggest the first thing to do is to take away their weapons of mass diversicide; which means to abolish any and all patents on living organisms and genetic sequences.
If you want to hit big pharma as well, abolish all patents.
Let's see. The bank somehow has an undercover agent of the federal reserve among its customers, which thinks one of the other customers might rob the bank (or for a better comparison: might possess counterfeit money), so the agent calls the customs agents?
I disagree. From the view of a reader (or consumer, customer, cultural participant, whatever) I don't care about volume. All I care is whether I can get the book I want.
And if copyright interferes with publishers (including wikimedia commons and project gutenberg) getting older books published, there is something seriously wrong with that copyright.
I don't give a damn if you make a fortune in reprinting Shakespeares works and selling them, although everyone can download them for free already. All I care for is that they're available.
Yes, fire the meteorologists and climatologists in the hurricane warning centres!
(any other stupid ideas on how to deal with scientists that try to warn you from impending doom? And if you haven't noticed: if you pump energy in to a system, the first thing that happens is behaving chaotically. And "behaving chaotically" for the climate means "storms". The abundance of hurricanes is actually a very clear indication of global warming. The scientists at the hurricane warning centres are actually at the forefront of that "global warming crowd").
But if you're saying this about somebody who just uncovered YOUR abuses of power to the public, then indeed, it does make you unfit for belonging to a government agency.
Yeah, I was thinking of software piracy. I figured it would need some 20 armed guys, ideally a helicopter to drop off some of them on the roof, and get in at maybe 5 in the evening, in the hope most developers would be there then.
Then quickly subdue any people in the software company, get the safe opened and all passwords for their servers at gunpoint, take any and all media probably containing source-code, and make sure they don't have it any more.
And finally, give the developers the chance to join the pirates or march the plank.
Let's see, you're running a highly successful criminal organisation, and up comes somebody and spills the beans?
Of course you hate him!
(Yesyes, it's of course a well-known phenomenon that you now see yourself as the victim, even if you were the one running an organized crime ring. It doesn't change the fact that YOU are the perpetrator, the criminal who did immeasureable damage to people and society).
The Advocate-General is an idiot who does not know the Law
Copyright is, and was, ALWAYS about publishing. And never about "receiving" or "getting" something.
Now, just about every copyright law on earth is about this. Except the german one, they recently included a paragraph where they made "downloads from an illegally published source" illegal. Which is of course an epitome of stupidity, because no one except a judge can tell whether something was "illegally published".
Of course, nowhere in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union (which is actually a series of directives aimed at harmonizing the laws of the different countries), there is anything written about "receiving". So this Advocate-General obviously don't know his law.
Furthermore of course, everyone is a copyright holder. I have a blog, I post photographs on the internet, thus a lot of what I am doing is copyright protected. Now, what happens if you download a picture of a cute cat from the internet, which somebody put up there, without having it made himself? If the AGs view of the law was only remotely correct? Yep, copyright violation. Because nobody ever gave you an explicit permission. In fact, if the AG were right, we'd find hundreds if not thousands of files (especially emails!) on his computer which would constitute a copyright violation according to his own misinterpretation of the law. I could even make him break the law by e-mailing him something which I do not have the necessary publishing rights for. Ridiculous.
Or let's take another angle: How do I now some TV-station has the necessary rights to show a movie that was obviously made by someone else? Do they need to publish all the contracts they have with the movie studio? Because if they don't everyone can call "copyright violation". And the movie studios, do they need to publish all contracts with the people that actually made the movie, because otherwise anyone can call them for "copyright violation"? It's probably not what the AG was thinking of, which just shows he wasn't probably thinking at all...
In other words, its totally, completely, utterly impossible to know if _anything_ is "legally published". Yes, it's possible for the copyright-holder to recognize his own work, and then for a judge to decide whether that claim has any merit. But before that happens, nobody can really know.
And that is the reason, (most) copyright laws are not about the receiving but only the publishing end.
So? Who classified this information? The same guys that violated the constitution? Why should anyone respect their classification when they only try to hide their crimes behind it?
Ah, forget it, whether this comes out or not won't make a dent. There's enough material already out there to try the whole executive, the uppermost NSA echelon, a lot of people in the USTR and many more as traitors -- Sadly, the law not as succinct as it could be:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
But given that the sovereign of the United States is its people, something could probably be constructed. Especially, declaring a US citizen "enemy combatant" would actually make you a traitor, since you wage war against him, and thus the US. Even if you are the government (The right way to do it would be trying him as a traitor, of course; but NOT as "enemy combatant").
He wasn't just there, he also worked for the Economist:
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
(Yes, there's a reason for linking to the "Ciba-Geigy"-part. Because Alphons Koechlin-Geigy, of that very same family, argued AGAINST patents in 1878 when he was president of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economiesuisse)
On the post: Canadian Spy Agency Tracking Users Of Free WiFi At Airports, Hotels, Coffee Shops & Libraries
Re: Re: Re:
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Not that Canada looks better ("better" as seen from my libertarian point of view):
http://politicalcompass.org/canada2011
or the UK:
http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
or the EU:
http://politicalcompass.org/euchart
Yes, dear audience, we're witnessing the new rise of fascism.
On the post: David Cameron Says Snooper's Charter Is Necessary Because Fictional Crime Dramas He Watches Prove It
Re: We also need crossbows! Lots of them!
As a swordsman, I can tell you, all swords drawn on TV sound the same kind of wrong, and sword fights are never portrayed accurately.
On the post: David Cameron Says Snooper's Charter Is Necessary Because Fictional Crime Dramas He Watches Prove It
Re: Re: Of course...
There, I fixed that.
On the post: Prince Sues 22 Fans For $1 Million Each For Linking To Bootlegs In Laughably Confused Complaint
Cyber-Bullying
On the post: DOJ Says Company That Vetted Snowden Faked 665,000 Background Checks
Re:
If private data about citizens is kept private, a company can't just "do background checks", because it won't get any. So the government has to do it itself. Which it should do anyway, because this is about clearances to secrets.
Which brings me to another point: classifying is completely broken. If you need 2 million people with "secret" clearances (and those people need them, lest they can't do their jobs), there is something seriously wrong with what _the people_ allow the government to "classify".
Overclassification is the enemy. The solution is to be transparent, and if you're embarrassed about blatantly fostering the agenda of the MPAA via your consulates, then don't friggin do it!
On the post: TV News Programs Seem Focused On Making Sure NSA Defenders Get Nearly All Air Time
Re: This blatant bias in the media is increasingly common
Happens in the US with evolution or global warming.
To the point where actually a majority thinks the nutcases are right, in spite of all science.
It's starting in Europe too, but the public is not yet that indoctrinated. Most people here think creationists and global warming deniers are total wackos (about the same as people believing in UFOs).
On the post: Big Pharma Accused Of Patent Plot Of 'Satanic Magnitude' By South African Health Minister
Re: Re: No, that sounds about right
If you want to hit big pharma as well, abolish all patents.
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re: Re:
As a bank manager, I'd go ballistic.
On the post: Copyright Week: Our Lost Culture: What We Lose From Having Killed The Public Domain
Re: Sort of a "no shit" story.
And if copyright interferes with publishers (including wikimedia commons and project gutenberg) getting older books published, there is something seriously wrong with that copyright.
I don't give a damn if you make a fortune in reprinting Shakespeares works and selling them, although everyone can download them for free already. All I care for is that they're available.
On the post: 53 Years To The Day That Eisenhower Warned Of The Military-Industrial Complex, Obama Will Further Its Cause
Re: Re: Also in that same speech
(any other stupid ideas on how to deal with scientists that try to warn you from impending doom? And if you haven't noticed: if you pump energy in to a system, the first thing that happens is behaving chaotically. And "behaving chaotically" for the climate means "storms". The abundance of hurricanes is actually a very clear indication of global warming. The scientists at the hurricane warning centres are actually at the forefront of that "global warming crowd").
On the post: The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted
Re:
But if you're saying this about somebody who just uncovered YOUR abuses of power to the public, then indeed, it does make you unfit for belonging to a government agency.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Stolen? Piracy?
Then quickly subdue any people in the software company, get the safe opened and all passwords for their servers at gunpoint, take any and all media probably containing source-code, and make sure they don't have it any more.
And finally, give the developers the chance to join the pirates or march the plank.
Now THAT would be software piracy!
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Officials Hate Ed Snowden With A Passion
Of course they hate the snitch
Of course you hate him!
(Yesyes, it's of course a well-known phenomenon that you now see yourself as the victim, even if you were the one running an organized crime ring. It doesn't change the fact that YOU are the perpetrator, the criminal who did immeasureable damage to people and society).
On the post: EU's Advocate-General Says Dutch Allowing Unauthorized Downloads Is Incompatible With European Copyright Law
The Advocate-General is an idiot who does not know the Law
Now, just about every copyright law on earth is about this. Except the german one, they recently included a paragraph where they made "downloads from an illegally published source" illegal. Which is of course an epitome of stupidity, because no one except a judge can tell whether something was "illegally published".
Of course, nowhere in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union (which is actually a series of directives aimed at harmonizing the laws of the different countries), there is anything written about "receiving". So this Advocate-General obviously don't know his law.
Furthermore of course, everyone is a copyright holder. I have a blog, I post photographs on the internet, thus a lot of what I am doing is copyright protected. Now, what happens if you download a picture of a cute cat from the internet, which somebody put up there, without having it made himself? If the AGs view of the law was only remotely correct? Yep, copyright violation. Because nobody ever gave you an explicit permission. In fact, if the AG were right, we'd find hundreds if not thousands of files (especially emails!) on his computer which would constitute a copyright violation according to his own misinterpretation of the law. I could even make him break the law by e-mailing him something which I do not have the necessary publishing rights for. Ridiculous.
Or let's take another angle: How do I now some TV-station has the necessary rights to show a movie that was obviously made by someone else? Do they need to publish all the contracts they have with the movie studio? Because if they don't everyone can call "copyright violation". And the movie studios, do they need to publish all contracts with the people that actually made the movie, because otherwise anyone can call them for "copyright violation"? It's probably not what the AG was thinking of, which just shows he wasn't probably thinking at all...
In other words, its totally, completely, utterly impossible to know if _anything_ is "legally published". Yes, it's possible for the copyright-holder to recognize his own work, and then for a judge to decide whether that claim has any merit. But before that happens, nobody can really know.
And that is the reason, (most) copyright laws are not about the receiving but only the publishing end.
On the post: When You Give Doctors Incentives To Get It Right, Rather Than To 'Do Everything', People Get Better Care For Less
... and patents
Our Patent System Incentivizes Drug Companies To Pay Doctors Kickbacks and so on..
On the post: Rep. Peter King Says It's A Disgrace To Call Out James Clapper For Lying To Congress
Re:
On the post: Feds: Even Though We've Been Ordered To Reveal Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act, We're Not Going To Do That
Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
But given that the sovereign of the United States is its people, something could probably be constructed. Especially, declaring a US citizen "enemy combatant" would actually make you a traitor, since you wage war against him, and thus the US. Even if you are the government (The right way to do it would be trying him as a traitor, of course; but NOT as "enemy combatant").
On the post: Discussions On The Abolition Of Patents In The UK, France, Germany And The Netherlands, From 1869
Re: Revelation!
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
I transcribed/OCRd the whole article, by the way:
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/voices-against-the-patent-system-the-economist-1851/
On the post: Discussions On The Abolition Of Patents In The UK, France, Germany And The Netherlands, From 1869
Re:
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis#Ciba- Geigy
(Yes, there's a reason for linking to the "Ciba-Geigy"-part. Because Alphons Koechlin-Geigy, of that very same family, argued AGAINST patents in 1878 when he was president of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economiesuisse)
Next >>