Science almost never says "this is true" that isn't how it works. Science works the other way about, you make an hypothesis based on evidence and then you attempt to disprove it. Most people however are not scientists they want to know if x is x and y is y so journalists, being people selling their views to people like to say "Scientists tell us ..."
The reason it is vital that papers are available for everyone to read is that the paper should contain the evidence and the reasoning so you can judge for yourself.
"That does not seem like a particularly intelligent way to govern or to legislate."
I've never yet in all my reading of history come across an example of any state finding an intelligent way to legislate. People in power, on the whole, tend to act in their own perceived interest, and they cannot believe anyone else does otherwise.
I want a separate plumbers' copyright, every time someone new comes to a house and uses a tap or the loo they should make a payment to the plumber that installed it. Further, you should not be allowed to use the facilities the plumber installed for anything new without paying. Cooking a new dish? The cooker installer should get a royalty, reading a new book after sunset? That's money for the electrician, before that, pay the glazier!
As I understand it this is not a court decision (as yet anyway) merely a bureaucrat's idea of what should be done. The original decision isn't a ood one, but isn't actually anything like as bad as originally painted, in fact if implemented correctly it would merely substitute one imbalance for another. This new ruling on the other hand is incontrovertibly bad, not only China and North Korea have terrible laws that could close the Internet, US anti-gambling laws, Islamic anti-drinking, Ugandan or Russian anti-homosexual and many more.
I would impose it via copyright law. Simply not allow enforcement of copyright unless the conditions are met.
The rule would not allow anyone to sell copyright software merely to adequately maintain software they already own. If companies wish to keep their sourcecode secret they merely have to keep maintaining it. Allowing copyright on secrets is crazy in any case, the point of copyright is to encourage the proliferation of knowledge.
For software a 14 year limit before you can fix a security threat renders the software useless. My proposal would not need any change to copyright terms and would not affect any non-functional copyright material. I do not see why anyone should be allowed to sell anything while refusing to allow its new owners to repair it if it breaks.
All software to be sold with either source code and rights to self maintain or a functioning security and service environment. As soon the company that provided the software ceases to provide adequate security and efficacy maintenance it becomes legal for anyone else who wishes to do so.
That should ensure that enforced obsolescence is fightable. As an extension the same idea could be applied to hardware ...
I don't remember the case but I'm pretty sure the English Courts (means England and Wales but not necessarily Scotland and Northern Ireland) have ruled that an EULA has no effect if there was no option to decline, and stopping the machine working would definitely count as no option. So will be interesting to see how this plays out outside the "land of the free"
It's torture if THEY do it, it's stressful when WE do Integrity? Eschew it, we'll tell you what is true. Report on all the issues, but always toe OUR line The facts are merely tissues, the truth is, OUR side's fine. You're rights protect the guilty so should be put aside Though the water's thick and silty, sit back enjoy the ride. We know who you should trust in, WE know who does no good Leave liberty a rustin', do what we say you should!
What the judgement actually says, as I understand it, is that if I search for A.N. Other, and A.N. Other has successfully convinced a court or Google that the fact that he painted his willy bright green and waved it at a crowd when he was 17, 30 years ago, is not representative of him now the newspaper report of that event will not appear.
If however I search for green willy 30 years ago, Google is perfectly free to point at the new story.
I personally think the judgement is silly and in most cases it will be counter-productive but it is nothing like as silly as various people want to make it out to be.
Of course if I am wrong about the original ruling I deserve to be pointed out as a fool, and I shan't demand the right for my foolishness to be forgotten
The British police are not immune to the temptations to up the level of force, and we have had a few unjustified shootings. Minorities are over targeted and many of the other mentioned failings show their face here. That said, a police officer who shoots anyone is automatically suspended while it is investigated and the senior members of forces do appear to be working hard to eliminate racism and sexism, both institutional and amongst individual coppers.