Also I should note that while the disadvantagement (cool new word) of women continues it is not nearly as extreme and as such they are treated much more like individuals by the government rather than some extension of their husbands...what I want is for us to continue down this path and have the government manage everyone the same as best it can. My point in acknowledging the disenfranchisement of the women as a driving force of marriage earlier in human history is to say that I think we've come far enough that now the left over vestiges of government managed marriages do more harm than good and in fact are a disservice to those women who have become less and less disenfranchised. If the men who govern other men had been enlightened enough to have not disenfranchised women in the first place then I don't think it marriage would have been as important as a stabilizing force for society but alas we evolved from a state where being bigger and stronger was better and we still carry some of that baggage.

Part of what I'm saying is I don't think marriage serves that purpose anymore. Social pressures drives marriage, not government rules promoting elevated privileges. It's pretty easy to see this in the fact that marriage and cultural rules around marriage existed long before they codified by civil governments. In my best estimation these social norms developed in response to a couple of things. First with folks being much lower on the pyramid with regards to which of our needs were being met, alla Maslow's hierarchy, the need for "teamwork" at the local level to further individual success was much stronger. Additionally, because of cultural norms that disenfranchised more than half of our population (sorry girls) and made it extremely difficult for the individual (especially of the female persuasion) to survive through their own actions unless they were exceptional in some way. With that level of disenfranchisement in place the structure of marriage was truly more important to ensuring that society continued to function. Again, because of this I believe those social pressures for marriage existed independent of government management of the institution. The idea that a government should enforce social norms is wrong and broken in my opinion and leads to much more harm than good.

Why not govern individuals and legal relationships and that taxation and legal impacts (e.g. head of house hold, dependent, heir, guardian). Government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, hetero-, gay, or whatever. Let religion, secular, and for all I care labor unions, secret societies, and fan clubs define that kind of thing. Instead govern individuals (with a blind eye legally to any differentiating characteristics or demographics of the individual) and only deal in relationships where they have an impact on how individuals are governed and legal rights. Then you avoid arguments like whether or not a or b is a valid marriage and what the rights of a married couple should be compared to single folks etc. When governments start governing groups instead of individuals, dictating cultural norms, and trying to influence social belief structures you usually run into trouble IMHO.

Don't you mean intellectually superior eagles?

It's funny and it's flamebait...I didn't know whether to mod you funny to counteract the flamebait mod or to comment...GENIUS I say!!! just GENIUS!!!

I get what you're saying, I just think we need a more systematic ground up look at the whole IP arena. To be clear I'm not saying they all need to be handled the same, I'm saying they all need to be considered with how they affect each other and the laws rewritten with that in mind. The idea of professional journals is a prime example of why. If it contains research but the copyright and possible patents are way out of sync then what good does it do to reform one without the other.

I'm not actually against your idea for copyrights. It may be the perfect answer but I don't think it is as easy as you make it out to be and solving it in a vacuum worries me that we'll end up in the same place again after a short period of time. But then again I could be wrong. At least I got a good slashdot conversation out of it for the first time in a while. =)

I don't think you can just address copyright. I think the concept of owning an idea or at least the right to commercialize it is key to setting the context of the argument for all legally protected intellectual property. That said, for the purposes of a simpler slashdot discussion I'll limit it to copyrights of artistic content.

Good question on the hit by a bus thing and I don't have a good answer. The standard method is to do an either/or sort of thing with the longest running one winning out. I'm not sure that's a good or a bad answer.

I'm not sure his wife and kids should inherit anything given that their only claim to the thing is that they're related to the creator. What makes the claim of a great,great,great,great,great,grandson any less valid than that of a son if blood ties are the argument for it. Can an item only be inherited once? Can it only be inherited by relatives or can friends get willed IP? Is it on the creator to make other provisions for his scions such as life insurance once he has a commercially viable work? Should legal protection of artistic works that have been published be inheritable since they derive their value from the interaction between the creator and the public? Should the creator have any say in the matter at all after he is gone?

I don't have the answers but I think someone should take a hard look at the questions and figure out what we're trying to accomplish with IP laws and concepts and how to achieve those goals because what's happening now does not appear to be achieving said goals and seems to protect and support corporations rather than creators and consumers of artistic works.

I can't say I completely disagree. For things like patents I completely agree and it should be a SHORT amount of time. Just enough in fact to make sure a major corporation can't swoop in a beat you to market because they've invested in manufacturing rather than research. Just because you innovate once doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to use the same ideas once you're had time to commercialize it, however. If two guys can independently invent calculus why can't two guys make a better mouse trap independently and why do they owe money to anyone who has ever worked on a mouse trap.

Copyright of artistic works is a bit different. I'm not sure just anyone should be able to sell a Bob Dylan recording because he recorded it x years ago or sell a Melville book because he wrote it x years ago. I think for artistic items it may be hard to legitimately take away control from the creator while he or she lives. If I'm just profit whoring then I'll still publish but if I'm an art for arts sake kind of guy and I don't care how widely it gets used I might not publish just to maintain control of my creation. That's not the effect I would want to promote. Since copyrighted material is a specific arrangement of words or notes or paint I have less of an issue with the though shall not profit from copies logic. That said conceptual things and ideas should not be subject to the same protections.

We yearn because this is about _OTHERS_ who sold their work to _NOBODY_. A company is not somebody it's a legal entity designed to restrict liability of individuals for harm they may cause and collect and pool capital investments in an efficient manner. Unlike an author who has a death, an obvious point in time around which which his rights and the good of society can be balanced a company can go on indefinitely and has a inherent disregard for any concerns which don't directly affect short or long-term profitability. The idea that a corporation can own intellectual property without an intellect is not beneficial to our advancement as a species. I've got not problem if the author wants to restrict his/her work for as long as he/she lives. But after they are gone a company shouldn't be able to hold something they didn't create and milk profit in perpetuity. We're talking copyright of artistic works today and that's disturbing enough but when the same concepts and legal tactics bleed into more other areas that affect quality of life and advancement it can be even more damaging.

Um ok..you're allowed to agree with the article but your level of vitriol is a bit silly. It's a puff piece and I would argue that for rolled up high level media predictions that is a mixed bag not "complete shit" which is also what the article claims. They've been partially correct on about half of the ones that have now expired (i.e. the 2006 ones). Given the high level nature of them that would be a mixed bag in my opinion given that they are predictions and not prophecy.

Also what predictions actually help people? What were you expecting the predictions to do? End hunger, fix injustice, provide world peace? Predictions by themselves (especially at this high of a level) are by definition pretty worthless. Why be such a jerk about it? It's a game. Chill out.

Maybe opening up the article would have served you better than opening up the comments. From the article...

New predictions aside, IBM’s track record of predictions over the past five years has been somewhat mixed. Let’s take a step back to 2006 and look at its predictions:...

They then go on to assess the prediction that the commenter made above but with a more generous tone than that being applied above. In general they treat them as though they were general business predictions (e.g. smartphones get smart...not that they literally read our thoughts) rather than acting like IBM is claiming to be a group of religious prophets.

It's shouldn't matter whether we're good or bad at it or any overly broad number of the people killed or anecdotal evidence of why it doesn't apply to me or you. The question is all things considered how much does it raise the risk of death or serious injury to the average citizen and is that risk acceptable for the value they get from talking on the phone.

Additionally, if they outlaw it you'll have to ask your self the same question though the risk will likely include imprisonment int he event of the death or serious injury of another.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth on both sides gets old. We should just focus on making rational decisions both in public policy and personal actions and move on.

Actually, a degree does not make you a professional. Being paid for work in a specific field makes you a professional in that field strictly speaking. There is some connotation to the word implying a certain level of competency which a degree can point to but it's only an indication not something that makes you a professional. Also honorary degrees don't count. ;)

Working as a professional FX dude doesn't make you a professional scientist which is what would be relevant when claiming that you are performing professional experiments. They have some very good mechanic/engineering skills and they have put them to use in a professional context but at the end of the day they're not super scientific with some of their tests and they usually end up just blowing stuff up for fun which is professional entertainment. Top Gear is very similar in that the main profession on that show is entertainment and not driving.

Love that this was modded as insightful. Really slashdot?