The clerk never demands and the supplicant never offers. The clerk explains that the forms are not in order in a certain tone of voice, and gives a certain look. The supplicant pulls a document out of a fat wallet, which is left open and unattended. It's a matter of deniability. To be explicit is to expose oneself to the law; if one party makes it explicit, the other will smell a trap.
1) Wouldn't it be interesting if someone were to breed/engineer a pest, a new strain of rust or something, optimized to destroy Monsanto crops, and market is as a tool which farmers can use to purge their fields of unwanted Monsanto plants, thereby preventing infringement?
Such an "invention" could then be locked up tight with bio-patents. Farmers who use Monsanto strains would then be faced with the prospect of having their crops destroyed by this new pest, and being sued for it.
Not that I would actually be in favor of such a thing. It would punish Monsanto only indirectly, ruin farmers who are guilty only of collaboration, and perhaps cause famine...
2) What if some Indian tribes copyright the plants they domesticated, then sue Monsanto for creating derivative works?... Nah, the tribes don't have enough money to win a big legal case against Monsanto, and even if they could it would probably lead to Kokopeli becoming a protected corporate trademark, which just makes my head hurt.
3) How about somebody creates and patents another strain of one of these plants, and sells the seed under a contract requiring that the second-generation adult plants be destroyed... with Roundup. Naturally this won't work if the first generation plants are pollinated by neighboring Monsanto plants. Whether or not this actually happens, it makes the Monsanto strain a tool for circumventing DRM.
4) Maybe if we concoct a completely implausible agro-terrorism scenario, and somehow get the idea tied in with health care reform via a logic-defying catchphrase, and maybe get some teen idols involved...
"...it is very common for drug smugglers to put things into the band of a woman's bra. You can get a whole lot of drugs like heroin into a single bra strap, more so on a padded bra.
And what does that have to do with protecting the aircraft and its passengers?
One wonders how to warn one's friends about the discovery of a new forbidden word.
Chen: Hello?
Liu: Hey Chen, there's a new word that got Lun's phone disabled, and it does the same in text and email. It's... you know... saying something that...
Chen: Oh, you mean... wait, in print, or...
Liu: Well no, obviously. It's the other one, the older word, kind of makes you think of the opera.
Chen: You're pulling my leg, aren't you.
Liu: No! It's, like, the word you practically have to use whenever you talk about--[CLICK]
Chen [thinks]: And I paid how much for this phone?
And those shorter-lived fission products are replenished and maintained at an equilibrium population by decaying uranium (which does produce decay heat).
Are you suggesting that the dominant source of heat is secondary isotopes which were maintained at high concentration during the fission-promoted period of normal operation (and maybe even higher when the cooling system failed, pressure rose and the coolant stopped boiling, before things started exploding), and now that a lot of the fuel rods are exposed to the air, the neutrons are too fast to cause chain reactions, the uranium fission rates are low, and the secondary isotope populations are declining (with a time scale of days) toward a lower equilibrium? That would be very interesting, if true-- do you have references?
The problem is decay heat, and as time passes, there is (literally) exponentially less of it to deal with."
Exponential with a very small decay constant. The half-life of 235U is about 700 million years, so it takes about 10 million years for the heat output of a single fuel pellet to drop by 1%.
In real situation is complicated by the fact that neutron chain reactions are involved -- the fuel rods don't just decay, they bombard each other with neutrons, like lumps of burning coal keeping each other hot in a furnace -- so the drop-off is actually faster than exponential, but the fact remains that the problem is not fixing itself at a significant rate.
Has anyone else noticed... "Overkill" means excessive use of something appropriate. Righthaven's use of the word here implies that Democratic Underground is in the right, and could have won with less effort.
Righthaven's lawyers seem to have a penchant for this kind of sloppy language: “Righthaven intends to fully expose the readily apparent flaws presented in defendants’ arguments that would completely eviscerate countless years of licensing and related transactions throughout the country." Fully expose flaws that are already apparent? Eviscerate past transactions? Whah?
Jose_X, please try to be more succinct. Some of your ideas are interesting, but you bury them in text that is much too long. Also, much of your philosophy is so unrealistic that I can't tell whether you're serious or just trying to make A Modest Proposal. Consider:
"Everyone would be required to work at the "basic" rates/dollars for part of their yearly income. The end result might be that those with less skill or less desire to work, for whatever the reason, would still be able to cover all their basics..."
Try to think this through before you move on to your next point.
"...there are many taxes intended to promote behavior that is believed to be socially beneficial..."
Intentions count for very little. An idealist invents a new tax, intending social good; a politician pushes it, hoping to win votes that way; another politician votes for it (with amendments), after checking with campaign backers that it won't hurt them much; tax lawyers love the new complexity; middle-class people who can't afford tax lawyers get a rude surprise; the new behavior is nothing at all like what the idealist had in mind, but who cares?
I'm in a pessimistic mood (polar bears), but it occurs to me that perhaps the causality goes the other way, at least in part: the CRS reports are hidden from the public, and therefore they are permitted to be candid and accurate. What a shame it would be if the CRS were opened up-- and politicized.
Ground-level TSA agents have two choices: A) acknowledge that these scans and searches are a pointless indignity, and feel deep embarrassment, or B) convince themselves that they are the Good Guys protecting the people, and that those who disagree are Bad Guys.
The second option is stupid, but much more comfortable, very appealing to idiots, bullies and would-be police.
Do we really want to torment the A group and provoke the B group until the checkpoints are staffed by nothing but hardened B's?
Cryptographic timestamps can prove that a log existed at a certain time and has not been altered since. The tricky part is proving that the log was not complete fiction when it was created.
How about a web-of-trust approach: imagine an app that allows two mobile devices to talk to each other and measure their separation distance (or at least put bounds on it). As you travel, your device shakes hands with other devices (pseudonymously), leaving a kind of alibi trail. If and when you're stopped by the police, you ask that your device's serial number be recorded in evidence, or better still, that it shake hands with police devices. Then in court you unmask the pseudonym and put out a call on the web for others ("e-witnesses"? sorry) to reveal their handshake records, along with third-party stamps. If you want to fake your travel history, you'll need a lot of accomplices.
Re: Re: Re: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Oh...
Can I amend my statement? Maybe to something like "a strong, clear, concise argument or a cutting parody of the bad thinking that some people really, sincerely use around here so that everyone will know you're being witty and satirical instead of neither..."
"The concept of increasing the sentence or severity level of a crime based on the use or possession of a device during the commission of that crime has been around for generations. Having a firearm in your possession during the commission of a crime, even if their is zero violence, or even the threat of violence, will still net you additional time."
That doesn't make it a good idea, and it's not clear that the principle should be extended to computers. You could just as well do it the other way: because possession of polarized sunglasses doesn't increase the sentence, neither should possession of a loaded shotgun. See? To be a strong argument it needs something more.
I understand why a government official would want a fat corporate job (and perhaps be willing to act in the corporations interest to get one). And I understand that a corporate executive would make a corp-favorable government official (out of habit). But I think I'm missing something. I don't see why a corporate exec would want to move into the public sector (prestige? ease?). And would that person have any incentive to keep working for the former employers benefit -- apart from mental inertia?
Here are a couple of questions I'd really like journalists to consider when writing these stories:
1) Can we find anything specific this official did for this company before joining it (e.g. did Jiampietro do anything particularly favorable to Goldman Sachs)?
2) Who appointed this executive to public office, and do they get anything from the corporation, or the same sector (e.g. did anyone who backed Rea get campaign contributions from Crowell & Moring beforehand, or a corner office afterward)?
3) (Going out on a limb.) Can we see a strong enough pattern here that we can predict which civil servants will take lucrative jobs with which companies over the next year?
On the post: Economist Explains Why Paying Certain Bribes Should Be Legal
Re: Not guilty in both directions
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
gedankenexperimenten
Such an "invention" could then be locked up tight with bio-patents. Farmers who use Monsanto strains would then be faced with the prospect of having their crops destroyed by this new pest, and being sued for it.
Not that I would actually be in favor of such a thing. It would punish Monsanto only indirectly, ruin farmers who are guilty only of collaboration, and perhaps cause famine...
2) What if some Indian tribes copyright the plants they domesticated, then sue Monsanto for creating derivative works?... Nah, the tribes don't have enough money to win a big legal case against Monsanto, and even if they could it would probably lead to Kokopeli becoming a protected corporate trademark, which just makes my head hurt.
3) How about somebody creates and patents another strain of one of these plants, and sells the seed under a contract requiring that the second-generation adult plants be destroyed... with Roundup. Naturally this won't work if the first generation plants are pollinated by neighboring Monsanto plants. Whether or not this actually happens, it makes the Monsanto strain a tool for circumventing DRM.
4) Maybe if we concoct a completely implausible agro-terrorism scenario, and somehow get the idea tied in with health care reform via a logic-defying catchphrase, and maybe get some teen idols involved...
On the post: Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!
Re: Re: Re:
And what does that have to do with protecting the aircraft and its passengers?
On the post: China Will Cut Off Your Phone Call If You Say The Word 'Protest' [Updated]
more forbidden words
UK: Overlord, cuisine, Semprini.
France: "LANCE ARMSTONG!"
On the post: China Will Cut Off Your Phone Call If You Say The Word 'Protest' [Updated]
But he said Jehovah!
Chen: Hello?
Liu: Hey Chen, there's a new word that got Lun's phone disabled, and it does the same in text and email. It's... you know... saying something that...
Chen: Oh, you mean... wait, in print, or...
Liu: Well no, obviously. It's the other one, the older word, kind of makes you think of the opera.
Chen: You're pulling my leg, aren't you.
Liu: No! It's, like, the word you practically have to use whenever you talk about--[CLICK]
Chen [thinks]: And I paid how much for this phone?
On the post: DailyDirt: Nuclear Power Plants 101
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that the dominant source of heat is secondary isotopes which were maintained at high concentration during the fission-promoted period of normal operation (and maybe even higher when the cooling system failed, pressure rose and the coolant stopped boiling, before things started exploding), and now that a lot of the fuel rods are exposed to the air, the neutrons are too fast to cause chain reactions, the uranium fission rates are low, and the secondary isotope populations are declining (with a time scale of days) toward a lower equilibrium? That would be very interesting, if true-- do you have references?
On the post: DailyDirt: Nuclear Power Plants 101
Re: Re:
Exponential with a very small decay constant. The half-life of 235U is about 700 million years, so it takes about 10 million years for the heat output of a single fuel pellet to drop by 1%.
In real situation is complicated by the fact that neutron chain reactions are involved -- the fuel rods don't just decay, they bombard each other with neutrons, like lumps of burning coal keeping each other hot in a furnace -- so the drop-off is actually faster than exponential, but the fact remains that the problem is not fixing itself at a significant rate.
On the post: Live By IP, Die By IP: Sony PS3s Seized By EU Customs For Violating Patents
Lost Sales
On the post: Irony? Righthaven Accuses One Of The 239 Sites It has Sued Of 'Litigation Overkill'
lawyers who don't know that words have meanings
Righthaven's lawyers seem to have a penchant for this kind of sloppy language: “Righthaven intends to fully expose the readily apparent flaws presented in defendants’ arguments that would completely eviscerate countless years of licensing and related transactions throughout the country." Fully expose flaws that are already apparent? Eviscerate past transactions? Whah?
On the post: Ask Congress To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Service's Reports Public
unsolicited advice
"Everyone would be required to work at the "basic" rates/dollars for part of their yearly income. The end result might be that those with less skill or less desire to work, for whatever the reason, would still be able to cover all their basics..."
Try to think this through before you move on to your next point.
On the post: Ask Congress To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Service's Reports Public
good intentions
Intentions count for very little. An idealist invents a new tax, intending social good; a politician pushes it, hoping to win votes that way; another politician votes for it (with amendments), after checking with campaign backers that it won't hurt them much; tax lawyers love the new complexity; middle-class people who can't afford tax lawyers get a rude surprise; the new behavior is nothing at all like what the idealist had in mind, but who cares?
On the post: Ask Congress To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Service's Reports Public
defeatism
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
unintended consequences
The second option is stupid, but much more comfortable, very appealing to idiots, bullies and would-be police.
Do we really want to torment the A group and provoke the B group until the checkpoints are staffed by nothing but hardened B's?
On the post: Guy Uses GPS Data On Mobile Phone To Get Out Of A Speeding Ticket
Re: This won't work as-is.
How about a web-of-trust approach: imagine an app that allows two mobile devices to talk to each other and measure their separation distance (or at least put bounds on it). As you travel, your device shakes hands with other devices (pseudonymously), leaving a kind of alibi trail. If and when you're stopped by the police, you ask that your device's serial number be recorded in evidence, or better still, that it shake hands with police devices. Then in court you unmask the pseudonym and put out a call on the web for others ("e-witnesses"? sorry) to reveal their handshake records, along with third-party stamps. If you want to fake your travel history, you'll need a lot of accomplices.
On the post: Guy Uses GPS Data On Mobile Phone To Get Out Of A Speeding Ticket
business model...
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: Re: Re: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Can I amend my statement? Maybe to something like "a strong, clear, concise argument or a cutting parody of the bad thinking that some people really, sincerely use around here so that everyone will know you're being witty and satirical instead of neither..."
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: devices used...
That doesn't make it a good idea, and it's not clear that the principle should be extended to computers. You could just as well do it the other way: because possession of polarized sunglasses doesn't increase the sentence, neither should possession of a loaded shotgun. See? To be a strong argument it needs something more.
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
You're supposed to make a strong, clear, concise argument before you say "nuff said". You said "nuff said" instead of the argument.
On the post: Revolving Door Between Gov't And Industry Continues: Pharma Lawyer Goes To USPTO As Gov't Financial Regulator Goes To Wall St.
closing the loop
Here are a couple of questions I'd really like journalists to consider when writing these stories:
1) Can we find anything specific this official did for this company before joining it (e.g. did Jiampietro do anything particularly favorable to Goldman Sachs)?
2) Who appointed this executive to public office, and do they get anything from the corporation, or the same sector (e.g. did anyone who backed Rea get campaign contributions from Crowell & Moring beforehand, or a corner office afterward)?
3) (Going out on a limb.) Can we see a strong enough pattern here that we can predict which civil servants will take lucrative jobs with which companies over the next year?
On the post: Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True
paid testimony
It is plausible that they would do so, whether Assange had actually been involved or not. One more thing for a juror to remember.
Next >>