Thanks to John from WSB for posting this...
From:http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
For more on this goto: The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
Lost Localhost
Sometimes I Overthink Things...
Sometimes I have to remind myself that I'm interested in way too many nerdy/scientific things. I made a post about the LHC thing to a forum I'm on and it led to the discussion of timetravel.
Me: Speaking in terms of traveling from present day to the past, I beleive there may be some form of limited particle time travel to be applicible for data transmission perhaps, but I'm pretty doubtful about solid matter. I'm also having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of mother nature "time traveling" back to stop the discovery of something. The first word that came to my mind when I read that was fate - and I don't like the idea of predetermination.
H:You mean like in Deja Vu?
Me: I consider DejaVu to be strictly a biological response in our brain associating current perceptions to recorded memory ones and perhaps some rare connection in the brain - I would fail to see how particles could have the properties to travel back in time and also be able to affect biological events - but I admit that is an interesting concept and in the future who knows what may be possible.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of being able to control the speed and/or production of a Tachyon-like particle at one time, and a detector sometime in the past. This would allow data transmission in a simple form (think morse-code). If these particles truely exist there would be challenges. First you would need to be able to detect them. Second, you would need to know exactly where to look. Third, a method to alter them would be needed. Four, once altered you would need to return them back to their old state (speed) and direct them to the correct spot. I'm sure there's a million other issues too, but that's just what came off the top of my head in the last three minutes. This would explain why we have had no apparent visits or messages from the future - if we can't even detect the paper, how can we see what's written on it?
Side note: I say Tachyon-LIKE particles, because most of the theory of tachyons states the ability to do the things I mentioned (alteration, isolation, encoding) aren't even theoretically possible.
H: I meant the movie not that phenomenon.. where they could send small items back into the past..
Me: oh...
Deja Vu...Good movie.
*facepalm*
Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party
Washingtontimes.com ran an article on the attempt of KINSTON, N.C. citizens to get rid of party affiliations in local elections and the Justice Department stopped them saying partisan elections are needed so black voters can elect their "candidate of choice".
*Deep breath....count to 10*
I just gave you a short summation, but the article is a good one to check out. Bottom line is that they have to get approval before any changes to their voting system. They wern't given approval because the Justice Department felt that "white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.". Nevermind the fact that the area is predominatly black democrats - and they're the ones voting for this change!. (the article cites people saying they can't remember the last time a republican won anything there)
How does removing party affiliations stop black voters from electing who they want? Won't everyone vote for who they want anyways? White voters are more likely to vote for a black democrat vs. a black republican? Really? If white guy A votes for black guy B, what difference does ti make if he's democrat or republican if his opinions don't change? What about the fact that many black voters voted for Senartor Obama without knowing his policies only because he's half black? Should we say those were racially motivated votes and throw them out? Did that violate white voters rights?
My point to be made is that people should vote for whoever has the best ideas as it aligns with your views. If voters vote based on race, I think it's wrong, but it's their perspective and their choice to do so. Why should the Justice Department block a change the people (again, mostly black democrats) want, saying it's for their own good? I beleive there is a tone to this that alludes to one of two things really going on here - both of which are pretty sad: The first is that the DOJ thinks black voters are too dumb to actually look into what candidates beleive and that they need that "D" next to a candidates name like an answer key. Second, and more likely, is that if you remove the party system everyone will be stripped of any preconceived notions and will have to rely only on the facts of what they beleive. Voters will have to research the candidates and learn about politics. Strangly enough, this scares most politicians - especially democrats.
I despise the idea of parties because (almost) everyone has great ideas and also some really bad ones. The steriotypes that the democrats are all welfare-loving government increasing communists and that all republicans are crazy God/gun loving radicals are hard to stray from - and if a candidate tries to they're shunned by all voters.
Strip politics down to the people. Let each individual represent THEIR ideas and THEIR goals. DOJ, stop getting in the way.
*Deep breath....count to 10*
I just gave you a short summation, but the article is a good one to check out. Bottom line is that they have to get approval before any changes to their voting system. They wern't given approval because the Justice Department felt that "white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.". Nevermind the fact that the area is predominatly black democrats - and they're the ones voting for this change!. (the article cites people saying they can't remember the last time a republican won anything there)
How does removing party affiliations stop black voters from electing who they want? Won't everyone vote for who they want anyways? White voters are more likely to vote for a black democrat vs. a black republican? Really? If white guy A votes for black guy B, what difference does ti make if he's democrat or republican if his opinions don't change? What about the fact that many black voters voted for Senartor Obama without knowing his policies only because he's half black? Should we say those were racially motivated votes and throw them out? Did that violate white voters rights?
My point to be made is that people should vote for whoever has the best ideas as it aligns with your views. If voters vote based on race, I think it's wrong, but it's their perspective and their choice to do so. Why should the Justice Department block a change the people (again, mostly black democrats) want, saying it's for their own good? I beleive there is a tone to this that alludes to one of two things really going on here - both of which are pretty sad: The first is that the DOJ thinks black voters are too dumb to actually look into what candidates beleive and that they need that "D" next to a candidates name like an answer key. Second, and more likely, is that if you remove the party system everyone will be stripped of any preconceived notions and will have to rely only on the facts of what they beleive. Voters will have to research the candidates and learn about politics. Strangly enough, this scares most politicians - especially democrats.
I despise the idea of parties because (almost) everyone has great ideas and also some really bad ones. The steriotypes that the democrats are all welfare-loving government increasing communists and that all republicans are crazy God/gun loving radicals are hard to stray from - and if a candidate tries to they're shunned by all voters.
Strip politics down to the people. Let each individual represent THEIR ideas and THEIR goals. DOJ, stop getting in the way.
LHC - God is protective of his particles...
So I found this story about the Large Hadron Collider and the theory that we will never find the Higgs Boson because "Nature will 'ripple backward through time' to stop the LHC ... like a time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather" huh? Nature itself time travels? We live in a universe that has solid properties and laws, so isn't it better to say time travel is not possible in the dementional space we reside in, instead of attaching this matter-based concept to "nature"?
Best part of the story is Professor Brian Cox, who kind of reminds me of my father-in-law, who says "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twit" He's from England, so I think calling them twits is the equivallant to giving the finger, right?
Damn it's easy to be a theorist.
Best part of the story is Professor Brian Cox, who kind of reminds me of my father-in-law, who says "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twit" He's from England, so I think calling them twits is the equivallant to giving the finger, right?
Damn it's easy to be a theorist.
Peace Prize given to President Obama (nearly given to Senator Obama)
Here is an article that best says what I want to...
"Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter).
President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20.
Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:
January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.
So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.
Good grief.
Editor's Note: Although President Obama had only been in office for 12 days before the nominations for this year's Nobel Peace prize closed the entire process actually takes a full year. According to the official Nobel Prize Web site invitation letters are sent out in September. Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline to submit nominations is February 1. -- Two hundred five names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. A short list of nominees is prepared in February and March. The short list is subject to adviser review from March until August. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced."
wow. I'm speechless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)