How about the core of the problem. Copyright is an artificial construct, people want to make stuff, sell it and keep it, the ultimate have your cake and eat falsity. We owe you nothing, not one thing for making it, you make it's your choice. What you do with it is your choice. Keep it secret, destroy it, release it, make a hard copy and stick it up your arse, all your choice. Nothing what so ever to do with the rest of us, not our choice and most definitely not our responsibility, you made it your choice, so don't want to released, keep it secret, nothing what so ever to do with the rest of us. So why the bullshit of forcing us to protect it like we own it, we don't it yours, do with it what you will.

The reality of copyright kind of stops there, sure the token thing of ensuring a person who didn't create it can not claim they did but it pretty much stops there. Now you release it, your problem, nothing to do with the rest of us. People copy it with their equipment and their materials, again nothing to do with the rest of us, as such, so what. For the famous car analogy, you make a self replicating car and complain when people us it to make copies and for some reason expect the rest of us to stop them, even when they supply all the equipment and hardware to make those copies.

Now taking that into account, do you understand why copyright was meant to be limited. OK we will humour you and give you limited protection, like a decade. Then the creative artists cease to be the concerned parties and publishers take over and not one scrap of creativity in them and demand that we enable them to basically print money and pretend it's real because they have enough money to corrupt government. So copyright a token limited right, whoops, privilege not a right at all, as you are attempt to claim ownership of something someone else produced, something some one else paid for and some things some one else has a right to, the copy.

So copyprivilege is the legal illusion of allowing some to steal other peoples copies that they have created and not only steal those copies but make them pay for creating them after they already paid to create them. That copy is actual property, it used actual materials and equipment and those people who made it paid to make it have a right to it. So seriously what gives anyone the right mind you the 'RIGHT' to steal it. Yes copyright is theft, the right to steal copies legally made by others (they were made with legally owned material, labour and equipment) and pretend they were not legally made because, hmm, 'GREED'. That is the only reason in the majority of instances, as that content in the majority of instance has no public value and in fact quite a large portion of it is damaging too society and in reality as such is of negative value to society.

What gamble, it's a dead certainty, the victim of marketing award. Wouldn't be caught dead with one, how embarrassing ;D.

It is really quite problematic, the difference in rights between children and adults, who gets to decide for whom, how does the opinion of professionals weigh against the opinions of people with no specialist knowledge. Who holds sway over the decisions with regard to children, trained professionals in specific areas only or an amateur parent in all areas. Parent decides, difficult, because their decision will likely be based upon ignorance or falsehoods propagated by others with vested interests in those falsehoods.

Solution might well be something parents could hate even worse, compulsory parent hood training and evaluation. Probably made a little bit easier to become accustomed to if it started in high school as part of sex education, not just how to make babies and avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy but how to bring them up and the important decisions a parent needs to make and why the correct answers are the correct answers, fail and you can not finish high school (there could be an alternate to that penalty but I am not going there). High school should cover more citizenship training, justice system, politics, social services and parenting. Better to convince people than force them.

Drop the most other countries bullshit. The US demanded it else economic sanctions, so not a choice but extortion. The second part of copyright must also be answered, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", content that fails that test should not have any protection beyond acknowledging the original author and being able to blame them for it ;P (copy to the hearts content any foolish enough to do so).

That part is totally ignored for copyright but in the US amazingly enough for patents as well, seriously rounded fucking corners.

For copyright protection especially the abuse of extended copyright protection, the content must pass a fitness test that the copyright claimant must pay for and that must pass the muster of "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The law is the Law. You want to sing about licking a dog's dick, fine but don't expect the taxpayer to spend one cent protecting that content, that is just seriously abusive of any sound principles of law or reasonable morality, especially as you will be seeking to protect some one singing about licking a dog's dick over the right of someone else's freedom of speech (not that anyone should penalise dogs when they do it ;) ).

The more common term is compact SUV, with the emphasis on easy access and egress, easy storage of items, good vision and much better vehicle characteristic than a say mini-van. Reality is the shift is not from hybrid to gas guzzler, the shift is from compact sedan to compact SUV, with limited offerings in the compact SUV market with regard to hybrids (they are also much more expensive). So yeah, bring on the cheap electric compact SUV and you will have no problem selling it as long as the range is there, the recharge time is there and of course it is a reasonable vehicle.

In many markets it is not SUV as such but is in fact full sized SUV, mid size SUV and compact SUV, with clear distinctions between them. In those markets the full sized SUV is a very poor seller versus say the compact SUV or the mid size SUV. Then there is two wheel drive versus four wheel drive. So what really is a two wheel drive compact SUV but just a vehicle configuration that seems to work better in every day life.

It is old knowledge. The more areas of you brain that you use to learn a lesson, the more you will retain from that lesson. So not just reading the card but reading it out loud because by vocalising it you are using another area of the brain (some thing works when you talk to yourself, you are not nuts, you are just vocalising thoughts for personal emphasis). Again don't just read the card, write down a copy of the instructions (the teacher preferred method for recalcitrant students, write down the instruction many times to reinforce the lesson). Interesting side note, you behaviour is questionable when you talk to yourself but not questionable when you write to yourself, dear diary says so.

So want to study for exam. Write down all the previous years questions (it will help you ready yourself for the challenge, you can of course substitute type for write), write down the answers below the questions (this after looking them up and reading them) and, then read them out aloud, questions and answers. Other big secret, in the reading time for an exam, flip through quickly and get to the essay question, because you are allowed to write notes during the question reading time, you can actually do a rough draught of the essay question, then after going through the rest of the exam, you now have more relevant ideas and can turn that rough draft into an exam saving answer or cherry on the top depending upon how well you have prepared.

Just a reminder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.... So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... Good English means toe does actually work better than tow. So toe the line when it comes to English especially when using idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..., otherwise the 'm' becomes a 't'.

Just a reminder about constitution and the rights that provide for citizens, the catch here, ALL CITIZENS, including the wee ones. Children are not pets and most certainly are not the possessions of parents. Children are citizens with the full right of protection of all other citizens (just not all of the responsibilities), including protection from those people recognised as the guardians of those children. So yeah, just like all other citizens expect to be protected from the bad decisions of others so children are entitled to that same right.

If you personally want to decide whether some one else gets an inoculation or not based upon beliefs, get a pet and not a child. As it stands the whole community decides for the benefit of not only the community but the individuals within that community who gets inoculated, when those individuals have the right of protection but not the mature responsibility to decide for themselves.

Anything can be faked especially in the digital world. So before anybody does anything with secure access methods, first they need to assess the risk for the particular kind of access and the security required for it.

Logically there are two greatest risk points and neither one has anything to do with internet access or money. False imprisonment, being identified as someone else or not yourself and being imprisoned for it, that access risk is handled in a full public court of review because the risk is extreme. The other, well, imagine yourself in a hospital bed being totally reliant upon proper authentication of who you are and what treatment you should be receiving, everything there verified manually between doctor and nurse and direct visual identification of you (even if you are not the name you claim to be, your body is identified as the one being treated appropriately).

So the one secure access answer for everything is mind boggling stupid. Overall digital security is really dangerous and has nothing on manual security involving many people and direct identification. So security appropriate to the risk only, simpler security for low risk and increasingly more complex and manually verified security for high risk.

Credit cards, visual identification and verification between the person, the picture on the card and the picture in the database. So when they fail what do you do, well call the police (if you live outside of the US) and let them manual verify what is going on, all the way up to a public prosecution (if you live in the US, get some else to call and don't be there when Law en-FORCE-ment arrives, just in case they go nuts because they felt threatened).

A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.

So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.

The flaw in this case is in the application of law. Take for example, to use the slashdot favoured car analogy, a criminal drives up to a bank, leaves the vehicle enters the bank and demands money at gunpoint, then leaves the bank and drives off in the car and the legal process than attempts to prosecute him for a traffic offence to cover the bank robbery. So the error is in not completely separating the computer and network issues ie basic network traffic offences entailing a penalty structure similar to road rules, from the crime associated with the network traffic offence. As in the case of the bank robbery, the bank robbery is completely separate from the traffic offences committed on the way to the bank or leaving it.

So in the case of computers a network traffic offence, with a typical fine and then the offence that resulted from the network traffic offence treated separately. So invasion of privacy, copyright infringement ( a civil matter), theft of resources (based on the value of resources), identity theft et al. and B$ charges about securing the site or possible maybe finding other incursions, nothing what so ever to do with the claimed charges (nobody tries to make the bank robber pay for a better safe or security guards).

Network traffic offences should be minor stuff, typically covered by fines (as a percentage of annual income to ensure equal penalty). With any crimes associated with the event separated out and directly prosecuted, thus avoiding tying say invasion of privacy with say an attempt to steal a million dollars, they are not one the in the same and should not be treated as such. It would be like charging every who speeds as a potential bank robber because bank robbers drove to the bank and sped away from the bank.

The obvious immediate change in the system required is that prosecutors should no longer be allowed to referred to the sentence in any way. They merely prosecute the claimed crimes and should they prove their case's, the judge and jury decide the penalty as relates to each crime that was effectively prosecuted. Also to ensure the guilty does not go free (people tend to forget that part when an innocent person is penalised) that the prosecution always be required to prove guilt regardless of plea. Ensuring the guilty do not get away with crimes is the whole point of the legal justice system and they must prove that when a crime was committed that the guilty party be prosecuted and steps taken to prevent them from committing further crimes. Greed has corrupted the system.

The problem with writing extremely complex rules to more accurately define particular crimes, is they allow lawyers to distort those interpretations and the guilty go free. So you attempt to assign a value to the harm as defining the penalty and they immediately then grossly distort the claims of harm to inflate the case. Attempt to use number of criminal acts and again thanks to the nature of computers, then can grossly distort the number of criminal acts and inflate the case.

The core problem seems to be the basic implementation of principles of justice. The public expects justice to be neutral and be applied fairly and equally. The adversarial system and idiotic performance quota distorts justice from being fair and equal, to an assumption guilt regardless of constitutional intent and that intent being a direct result of people using the justice system to persecute people and falsely prosecute them.

Every claim by the prosecution must be proven, the defendant should only offer no contest and only plea at the end of the prosecutorial case once all evidence has been submitted for judicial review and the defendant has been forced to publicly sit through and that all parties can see justice prevail, in it's investigation and proper prosecution. Confessions and guilty pleas have always been an anathema to public justice especially when combined with legalised torture as in the case of the US in-Justice System (still no prosecutions for that high crime).

The forget that the public who in point of fact do retain ownership of it, only sell control and the control can be taken back. In the case of any select point, it can be retained as public park (a standard joke in the commercial development world, manufacture land, no problem, all you need is a box of matches, you'll figure it out).

Truth is the majority always makes the rules, a corrupt minority just gets away with what the majority lets them get away with, up until the majority stops them from doing so. The illusion that the minority control anything, is just that an illusion, keeping in mind they do readily and perversely enough preferably resort to extremes of violence to sustain that illusion (it's their nature).

Perhaps, just maybe perhaps, something that is inherently broken should be broken. As a means by which to increase the prices of commodities, not to the benefit of producers or to the benefit of end consumers purely to create an artificial point by which disgusting individuals can insert themselves into the transaction and claim that price increase as profit for doing nothing other than speculating and seeking purposefully manipulate the price. It ain't stupid to try to eliminate the current commodities pricing scam.