SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars published a story about the effects the winner of Tuesday's presidential election could have on intellectional property issues:
The hot-button issues this election can be counted on one's fingers—and for most voters, things like copyright and patent policy don't make the list. Assigned to a wonkish zone far from the Sunday morning talk shows, intellectual property issues aren't near the heart of our deeply polarized political discourse.
Of the two major party candidates in 2016, only the Democratic candidate has a platform that even addresses copyright and patent policies. So today, let's look at what we know about Hillary Clinton's plan, and make some informed speculation about what could happen to these areas under a Donald Trump presidency.\
Given that the campaign is focused (as always) on a relatively small group of issues, tech policy watchers who spoke to Ars were surprised to see a presidential platform that mentions IP issues at all. Clinton's briefing paper on technology and innovation addresses both copyright and patent issues directly, and that in itself is something of a surprise. Trump's website has no such information, so the best clues to his approach lie in his public statements and the people he has surrounded himself with.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:23AM
It was a Wednesday. At least I think it was Wednesday, but in the end of days precision became irrelevant. I had not found water in over 24 hours, and of that, I was sure. Just two weeks after President Trump entered hot war with EVERYONE BUT Russia, the world had come to this? I had been wandering for hours-- alone, exhausted, and dry with thirst. Sheltering from the afternoon sun would have been sensible; but there was no doubt I needed to find food and water before nightfall.
I glimpsed the remains of what had been a building or settlement in the near distance. Certain I could scavenge another night's survival, I pulled my jerry can to my chest, dragged my injured leg behind me, and broke into a lumbering jog. I smelled the bodies before I saw them-- a cluster of rags. Men, women, children, probably attacked and robbed by other survivors. I had grown accustomed to this. Since the bombs, the stench of death was everywhere.
Reaching the fence at the edge of the property, I recoiled in shock. Sitting just behind the fence was a bearded, bespectacled, hipster dude in his thirties eating pineapple chunks from a tin can. "Hello there!" he offered. I nodded my head with apprehension. "Did you ever consider the positions the presidential candidates held on intellectual property?" he called out as I wormed my way towards his stench.
It was hours later that I considered a response. Surely, in more civilized times, pummeling him to death with a jerry can would have been unreasonable. Still, I had found food, water, and a place to rest for the night. With that, I simply licked my lips and threw his thigh bone into the fire. I continued eating and muttered, "Fuckers... well, at least I can spell and punctuate. Useful skill... someday."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @04:37AM
Who would Trump war with? His views on our worldwide militarism has been to have others starting picking up the slack or pulling out. He's done nothing but express a willingness to scale back the US war machine.
I imagine the US military would probably cut off Hillary before she can do anything too insane, but she has been actively looking to provoke and expand military conflicts. She rejoiced over Libya as "We came, we saw, he died!" with some sort of sociopathic smile on her face the whole time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y [youtube.com] And this is the person you want to have ostensible control over the world's strongest military?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @04:39AM
I won't even get into the irony of her choosing to base her rejoicing on a quote from Julius Caesar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @05:28AM
Better than somebody who still doesn't understand, after being told no less than three times why we can't use our nuclear bombs. The concept of mutually-assured destruction - the entire reason anyone still possesses nukes - isn't that hard to grasp.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday November 08 2016, @06:22AM
Yes, all the nuclear powers can be sorted into pairs to which mutually assured destruction applies:
USA + Russia
Pakistan + India
UK + France
Israel + Iraq
North Korea + Japan
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday November 08 2016, @06:49PM
Israel + Iraq? Iran maybe? Or Saudi Arabia more likely.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday November 08 2016, @12:12PM
The concept of mutually assured destruction comes from having large arsenals of large nukes squared off on opposing sides. The US, particularly if we regain a little of Russia's and China's good will and get into less of a standoff situation could use any number of nukes in the middle east as long as we retained enough of them to still assure mutual destruction with Russia and China. Since Syria is not capable of offering mutually assured nuclear destruction to us, they are free game.