I agree that his word choice at points is unscientific, and that he no doubt has an agenda especially being Professor of Pediatrics. But I still feel it's a hugely informative talk in which the science greatly outweighs the sensationalism.
838 karma · joined August 27, 2011
It's a talk by Dr Robert Lustig called Sugar: The bitter truth.
--edit-- heres another list: http://bighugelabs.com/topcameras.php
>> "NOTING further that the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, as well as of services that distribute infringing material, undermines legitimate trade and sustainable development of the world economy, causes significant financial losses for right holders and for legitimate businesses, and, in some cases, provides a source of revenue for organized crime and otherwise poses risks to the public;"
It's based on a false premise backed at best by contentious statistics. Also, ironically, it's prohibition that provides organized crime the largest source of revenue.
>> "In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party's judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits,"
The rights holders get to tell the judicial system what they think you should be charged. Thats like, if you stole a venti-mocha-latte, and starbucks got to decide what your punishment was.
>> "at least for copyright, additional damages."
And in the case of copyright, there will be 'additional damages'
>> "Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements, the predominant use of which has been in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of further infringements."
They can destroy your computer.
>> "A Party may provide for the remedies described in this Article to be carried out at the infringer's expense."
You have to pay for everything.
>> "its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls"
They're trying to take away your right to remain silent. (Which I realize isn't available in every country)
>> "to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring"
They can stop you from entering or confiscate your computer if they think you might download a movie.
>> "A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage."
This section should read "must exclude" theres no reason they should be searching small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature.
>> "where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release of suspect goods."
The movie studio can determine weather you get your computer back or not.
>> "each Party shall provide penalties that include imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement"
You are to be punished severely. This is not a fine like a ticket. This is jail time and/or severe fines. For downloading a song.
>> "the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement"
They can order your ISP to give up your identifying information. Which may or may not even be relevant.
>> "Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors, performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights in, and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors"
You can be punished for circumventing DRM, jail-breaking your iphone, or using a region free dvd player.
>> "the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure"
Jailbreaking software, dvd decryptors, video game backups.
>> "to remove or alter any electronic rights management information;"
You are not allowed to remove identifying information even from media you purchased. Itunes wants to put your full name in a song you downloaded's meta-data? You have to leave it there.
>> "Each Party shall endeavour to promote, where appropriate, the establishment and maintenance of formal or informal mechanisms, such as advisory groups, whereby its competent authorities may receive the views of right holders and other relevant stakeholders."
Makes provisions for hearing from the IP rights holders, but nothing about hearing from citizens or public rights groups.
>> "share information with the competent authorities of other Parties on border enforcement of intellectual property rights, including relevant information to better identify and target for inspection shipments suspected of containing infringing goods."
They can start a world wide list of suspected infringers and keep permanent information about you available internationally.
>> "The Parties hereby establish the ACTA Committee. Each Party shall be represented on the Committee."
Doesn't say how the representatives will be chosen. Could easily be copyright lobbyists.
>> "The consultations, including particular positions taken by consulting Parties, shall be kept confidential"
They can keep their consultations between representatives out of the public record.
___________________________________
This bill's clear intent is to put copyright in front of human right. It's to get signing nations to agree that the wealth of IP holders is more important than the comfort and privacy of their own citizens.
It won't stop piracy, it won't create national wealth, it'll give organized crime more money, it will waste SHIT LOADS of public money and time in the process, and we'll all be a little more worse off.
Denormalization is still important. Taking that comment example a bit further, if you need user records tied to the comments, you're going to want to include all the user information that you need for displaying the comment in the comment record itself. Mongodb doesn't have joins. So if you have 200 comments on a post by different people, you're going to have to grab those users from mongo in a separate call, and if you're sloppy about it, 200 separate calls.
If your users really need to change their user names, you might run a job that updates the comments async.
What people want:
Everyone 'good' for the discussion.
No one 'bad' for the discussion.
No manual labor.
Unlimited growth while maintaining a perfect community.
Grow slowly
Restrict Signups
Moderate
If HN had downvotes on submissions, this is one of the rare cases I would find it useful as 'flag' doesn't seem to really qualify.
The US government absolutely does monitor twitter.
Not having your real name on-line still matters greatly.
The US is willing to waste gobs of money just to make you feel bad.Internships are not essential. At all. They're generally anti-competitive and exploitative of the interns. Young people with no experience think they're essential, but they're just throwing their peers off the boat. You should never work for free. Period. You're devaluing yourself and your peers and giving employers carte blanche to skirt labor laws. Never work for free, even if it's just bringing ass-holes coffee.
The problem: If it's a good thing... whatever. If it's a bad thing... Mass Death. Seriously, that's not an exaggeration. Any slight imbalance and we're talking catastrophe. Unless you don't think natural disasters matter much.
We're not saving the environment we're saving our goddamn selves. The environment isn't even a thing. But humans are, and we need a stable environment to get on with our lives.
I would love to see similar talks about other languages.
var a = undefined = 1
//vs
b = undefined = 1
And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.
Ok lets play this game. The fact is that H20 is not a pollutant. It's a molecule that sustains life and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.
Bring on the ice age!!
Seriously, how do we start non-exploitative banks? I would love to write software that helped make it happen.
Silicon Valley Vs Hollywood = Old hat film making/distribution VS New hat film making and distribution.
That is all.
-edit-
And furthermore, they have almost completely rejected working together with anyone and sue their own customers in mass. All out of fear of cannibalizing their own profits. Essentially Hollywood refuses to innovate out of fear. I'm not into that so much.
Or perhaps what would be even more fun, is I could put download links for movies on their own posters.
Technically nothing has been validated. You've proved that the email address exists. But it's deliberate use hasn't been validated. And that's the whole point of validation.
No more censoring for copyright.
No more jail terms for copyright.
No more searches for copyright.
No more extradition for copyright.
not sure how much has changed since then.