“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I tend to believe that persons within an industry have access to information, current and historical, that inform their opinion. Thus, I believe it is a mistake to tell one who certainly has such information in hand that he/she if just plain wrong if I do not have such information so that we both talk using the same baseline of information.
Sounds plausible but..
Whenever I haved become privy to this "information" it has turned out not to be what I thought it would be.
You have to remember that such information will only be available if the person in charge takes the trouble to make it available and then only in a form that they dictate. Thus there is a high probability that the assumptions that they started with will be built into said information.
Your attitude is a recipe for willing subjugation to those who you beleive know better than you do. If the American founding fathers had taken that line the USA would have remained a British colony.
Yeah, people are going to quickly go after the digitized books and will rarely buy new ones. The Norwegian authors are going to have to hope they can make money selling outside of their own country, but more likely than not you'll start to see writing decline.
Epic failure - to repeat a previous commenter's sarcasm as a "serious" comment!
it seems rather pointless to me to have someone in charge who actually turns out to be nothing more than a 'front man', with no pull whatsoever!
Barack Obama == Zaphod Beeblebrox
"He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox
whereas investment in all those regions may be increased with better agreements for the protection of those investments, that's an absolute argument.
An absolutely wrong argument.
It may be increased - but then it may be reduced you don't know because no experiment has been done that is capable of proving your case.
On the other hand the evidence is that there is more inward investment in these countries than elsewhere even without such agreements. Your argument requires a faith based belief that these agreements will always do what they say they do. However you ignore the possibility that :
i) The agreements are unnecessary because the governments of these countries don't have a history of undermining investments with new laws.
ii) The agreements are counterproductive because they raise in the investor's mind the thought that there could be a problem where previously he had ignored the possibility.
iii) The agreements are pointless because everyone knows that the country in question will find a way to ignore them if push comes to shove (cf the treatment of UK and Antiguan internet gambling companies in the US)
To summarize your counterpoint to an argument that has relatively little evidence is an argument that has absolutely none.
Except of course that the evidence is that the US and the UK WILL NOT COMPLY with any of these requirements anyway - if domestic politics or the self importance of the local judiciary dictate it. Look at the trade dispute between the US and Antigua or this statement from Lord Judge (wonder why he wanted to go into the law) are anything to go by.
"My personal belief is that sovereignty on these issues should not be exported, and we should beware of the danger of even an indirect importation of the slightest obligation on parliament to comply with the orders and directions of any court, let alone a foreign court."
(He was talking about a different issue but the princeiple is the same.)
Paying for bandwidth, good connectivity etc is fine. What isn't fine is paying to reduce someone else's connectivity, bandwidth etc. (In a manner similar to those sales of exclusive rights for sporting events).
That is what the anti-net neutrality people are really arguing for - the right to artificially reduce someone else's access.
Williamson more or less came up with Diffie-Hellman, but actually figured it out a few months *after* Diffie spoke about it.
I 'd like to see the evidence that Diffie had it first. The timeline that I'm aware of has Williamson predating Diffie by a few months at least. Certainly Williamson invented it independently of Diffie - although his work depended on what Ellis and Cocks had already done.
GCHQ had no idea what they had on their hands and ignored it
No I disagree with that. I think GCHQ knew exactly what they had on their hands and suppressed it.
However the main point I think we all agree on here is that independent invention is more or less universal. No one is really clever enough to be the only one who has an idea - and most ideas lie dormant for years or even centuries - waiting for an enabling technology as another commenter said.
One only has to think about the question "why didn't the Romans have bicycles".
Successful implementation is another matter - but often success is the consequence of geo-economic factors (which often favour the US) and good fortune rather than merit or hard work.
If Diffie managed to come up with the same idea without any knowledge whatsoever of Ellis, Cocks, and Williamson's work, well then Diffie still invented it. Independently.
Not trying to take anything away from Diffie - just trying to ensure that Ellis, Cocks and Williamson get the credit due to them. In fact Ellis agreed with that too since he acknowledged that Diffie et al had made much more of it than they were able to. Too bad that GCHQ politics stopped them from exploiting it.
"Whit Diffie (who invented public key cryptography) and Ron Rivest (who basically made it practical in real life)"
Actually it was invented by James Ellis and made practical by Clifford Cocks and Malcolm Williamson several years earlier. Unfortunately the secrecy policies of GCHQ prevented them from either exploiting it or receiving the credit.
Whitfield Diffie heard a rumour(about this), probably from the NSA, and travelled to see James Ellis. The two men talked about a range of subjects until, at the end, Diffie asked Ellis "Tell me how you invented public-key cryptography".
However I am sure that Ellis Cocks and Williamson would (have) agree(d) with Diffie on this issue.
My patent is for a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on.
The tragedy is that if you submitted this enough times to the patent office (with slightly different wording) it would eventually get through!
(On second thoughts maybe not - since the patent office itself has prior art - how do you think it decides whether to approve patents?)
Re: The Source of Power is Being Consumed Over a Short Period of Time (to Richard, #24).
In the first place, it is not "random cell death."
The general degradation of the batteries is not random cell death - but random cell death does occur. I have observed it. I fly some relatively high power electric model aircraft. These use similar cells to the ones in cars. I have observed cell failure for no apparent reason.
Most vendors of these batteries will offer NO WARRANTY at all one you have connected them to anything. SO I maintain that, in addition to the gradual loss of capacity of all the cells, there will be occasional total death of individual cells.