China is not a respecter of international copy right laws (last I understood). Elon Musk has succeeded in allowing US companies into China, including his own interest in AI systems. Musk is now free to use any copy righted material in programming his AI engine at a Chinese lab. It seems then that Elon Musk is a privateer, interested in lining his already bulging pockets without regard to national loyalty or international conscientiousness. So let's see Musk as the PIRATE he is. A wealth tax needs to be instituted so that no one can attain runaway wealth.
Intellectual Property in China is developing historically late to European and US standards. It is based on communist thought that views IP as government property and has been developing more in line with capitalist views since 1980 ==>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_China. As I understand it, enforcement is more of an issue than actual policy, though U.S.-China relations are not as transparent nor collaborative as they could be.
As I read Walter Isaacson's Biography of Elon Musk, he is no pirate (that term is fraught, as are wealth taxes.) His base intention is to Occupy Mars. To be clear, he is changing daily, though, and I have no real insight into his thoughts only his words. ==> https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/elon-musk-en-walter-isaacson
No worries if you don't have time to clarify. I'm just doing some diligence on this.
Not to nit pick Tim, treaties are laws and they do exist between nations, sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. Surely China is moving toward standards of publishing integrity, it's just not there now and this legislative loophole allows anything to happen such as I suggested. Thank you for your research yet I am not reassured of your unbiased opinion.
As for "Occupy Mars", a cheesy rip-off of Occupy Wall Street, it is built for suckers who watch too much Sci-fi and have no sense of reality.. The route is filled with cosmic radiation in case you hadn't heard. Just doing a reality check, Tim.
There isn’t a singular, universally applied ‘International Copyright Law.’ Treaties can have the force of law but aren’t law in many important ways. Ask any Native American.
On the issue of outbound investment, the removal of Cornyn-Casey still leaves some executive policy in place—so it’s not quite a free-for-all – that comes on Jan 20.
As for Musk’s Mars ambitions, cosmic radiation is a legitimate concern and a known technical unknown. Here, we focus on how Elon’s influence affected the funding bill. The road to Mars is paved with doubters, as is the marketplace and technologists who have underestimated or, more importantly, misunderstood Elon Musk. The wealth he has garnered forces us all to lens on the wills and whimsy he ponders. He might no longer desire to go to Mars. I doubt it. I can’t summarize his thoughts, but in general, he is future-oriented and Trump past-oriented.
I understand your tone and need to check reality here. We share a need to ground our concerns on practical ones. I respect that. I’m no Musketeer.
I truly wish you the best in the coming year and beyond,
Again thank you for your clear explanation. Mr Musk appears a bit of an enigma with his ranting rambling posts on X over the continuing resolution. What kind of future someone like Musk represents is truly problematic yet of more immediate concern is the fact that the past-oriented dude is coming to our very near future.
Trump supporting Musk is another example of hypocrisy. Here Trump wants the U.S. to be independent, with everything made in the U.S. He is planning on high tariffs for all these other countries, particularly China. Yet he allows Musk to torpedo a bill he himself agreed to in exchange for a bill which would be favorable to Musk opening manufacturing plants in China? Total hypocrisy. Trump continues to lie, deceive and cheat.
What a critical period we are entering. It's impossible to ignore the insane power of the oligarchy, yet there's no playbook on how to respond to what's unfolding. So grateful for the unbiased news provided here. Staying informed and vigilant is the best I can do right now.
The company responsible has paid to the U.S. government. I was supposed to help the DOJ with the law suit against them, but the company settled before going to trial.
well that may be, however the people deserve to see the accounting on that. for far to long the people are left in the dark . the corporate entity should be paying the entire cost of there negligent actions.
They paid $102 million dollars (there is nothing secret about the settlement with the DOJ)---mostly paid by their insurance companies. But there are lots of other lawsuits that are still in process. It will take several years to clear them all up. The problem is that paying after the fact is not a very effective way to change corporate behavior. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them and that they can get away with egregious behavior---until it does happen to them. Cpmplacency is difficult to overcome. The best way to prevent such tragedies is for governments to regulate corporate behavior before a loss occurs. With the Republicans now in charge, expect that regulations and any other attempts to prevent negligent and unsafe behavior by corporations will be reduced or eliminated.
The only backstop is insurance companies, which have been surprisingly effective in the past in reducing some types of accidents (note the "UL" on the back of most of your appliances). But with our very complex systems today, insurance companies are not as effective. Lawsuits are satisfying, but usually ineffective in changing future behavior. Government oversight is the only thing left and that is being eliminated.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to Don's post. This has helped me better understand this.
I'm not sure if regulation and oversight are the "best" or "only" way to prevent these tragedies. The NTSB investigation is probably more worthy and has brought about a culture of safety that is emulated worldwide. It is one of the best examples of government service out there, but regulation/oversight is not its function. It's the culture that drives the prevention and the worldwide transportation economy.
To your point, many responses (including torts) are needed to prevent these tragedies.
-->The settlement was for the public response only and did not include any damages for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
-->I think Don is asking for the industry to foot the rebuild. That is legitimate but still needs to be vetted.
-->In the meantime, bridges are public infrastructures that need to justify themselves - I don't know about the economics of that, but it has considerable local and federal benefits.
Thank you for these thoughtful and informative podcasts. I have a question about the Social Security Fairness Act. Was that also signed into law by President Biden?
China is not a respecter of international copy right laws (last I understood). Elon Musk has succeeded in allowing US companies into China, including his own interest in AI systems. Musk is now free to use any copy righted material in programming his AI engine at a Chinese lab. It seems then that Elon Musk is a privateer, interested in lining his already bulging pockets without regard to national loyalty or international conscientiousness. So let's see Musk as the PIRATE he is. A wealth tax needs to be instituted so that no one can attain runaway wealth.
Will,
There is no such thing as International Copyright Law - only treaties. ==>https://copyrightresource.uw.edu/copyright-law/international-copyright-law/
Intellectual Property in China is developing historically late to European and US standards. It is based on communist thought that views IP as government property and has been developing more in line with capitalist views since 1980 ==>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_China. As I understand it, enforcement is more of an issue than actual policy, though U.S.-China relations are not as transparent nor collaborative as they could be.
Many companies still do business in China. Removal of the Cornyn-Casey outbound investment package wording removes legislative regulation already in the executive policy. ==>https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-20-government-shutting-down-elon-musk-factories-china/
As I read Walter Isaacson's Biography of Elon Musk, he is no pirate (that term is fraught, as are wealth taxes.) His base intention is to Occupy Mars. To be clear, he is changing daily, though, and I have no real insight into his thoughts only his words. ==> https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/elon-musk-en-walter-isaacson
No worries if you don't have time to clarify. I'm just doing some diligence on this.
Best,
Tim
Not to nit pick Tim, treaties are laws and they do exist between nations, sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. Surely China is moving toward standards of publishing integrity, it's just not there now and this legislative loophole allows anything to happen such as I suggested. Thank you for your research yet I am not reassured of your unbiased opinion.
As for "Occupy Mars", a cheesy rip-off of Occupy Wall Street, it is built for suckers who watch too much Sci-fi and have no sense of reality.. The route is filled with cosmic radiation in case you hadn't heard. Just doing a reality check, Tim.
Will,
Thanks for taking the time to follow up.
There isn’t a singular, universally applied ‘International Copyright Law.’ Treaties can have the force of law but aren’t law in many important ways. Ask any Native American.
On the issue of outbound investment, the removal of Cornyn-Casey still leaves some executive policy in place—so it’s not quite a free-for-all – that comes on Jan 20.
As for Musk’s Mars ambitions, cosmic radiation is a legitimate concern and a known technical unknown. Here, we focus on how Elon’s influence affected the funding bill. The road to Mars is paved with doubters, as is the marketplace and technologists who have underestimated or, more importantly, misunderstood Elon Musk. The wealth he has garnered forces us all to lens on the wills and whimsy he ponders. He might no longer desire to go to Mars. I doubt it. I can’t summarize his thoughts, but in general, he is future-oriented and Trump past-oriented.
I understand your tone and need to check reality here. We share a need to ground our concerns on practical ones. I respect that. I’m no Musketeer.
I truly wish you the best in the coming year and beyond,
Tim
Again thank you for your clear explanation. Mr Musk appears a bit of an enigma with his ranting rambling posts on X over the continuing resolution. What kind of future someone like Musk represents is truly problematic yet of more immediate concern is the fact that the past-oriented dude is coming to our very near future.
Stay alive and live well, friend.
Trump supporting Musk is another example of hypocrisy. Here Trump wants the U.S. to be independent, with everything made in the U.S. He is planning on high tariffs for all these other countries, particularly China. Yet he allows Musk to torpedo a bill he himself agreed to in exchange for a bill which would be favorable to Musk opening manufacturing plants in China? Total hypocrisy. Trump continues to lie, deceive and cheat.
And except his Bibles he sells
What a critical period we are entering. It's impossible to ignore the insane power of the oligarchy, yet there's no playbook on how to respond to what's unfolding. So grateful for the unbiased news provided here. Staying informed and vigilant is the best I can do right now.
why are the people rebuilding a bridge destroyed by a private corporation ?
The company responsible has paid to the U.S. government. I was supposed to help the DOJ with the law suit against them, but the company settled before going to trial.
well that may be, however the people deserve to see the accounting on that. for far to long the people are left in the dark . the corporate entity should be paying the entire cost of there negligent actions.
They paid $102 million dollars (there is nothing secret about the settlement with the DOJ)---mostly paid by their insurance companies. But there are lots of other lawsuits that are still in process. It will take several years to clear them all up. The problem is that paying after the fact is not a very effective way to change corporate behavior. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them and that they can get away with egregious behavior---until it does happen to them. Cpmplacency is difficult to overcome. The best way to prevent such tragedies is for governments to regulate corporate behavior before a loss occurs. With the Republicans now in charge, expect that regulations and any other attempts to prevent negligent and unsafe behavior by corporations will be reduced or eliminated.
The only backstop is insurance companies, which have been surprisingly effective in the past in reducing some types of accidents (note the "UL" on the back of most of your appliances). But with our very complex systems today, insurance companies are not as effective. Lawsuits are satisfying, but usually ineffective in changing future behavior. Government oversight is the only thing left and that is being eliminated.
Nancy,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to Don's post. This has helped me better understand this.
I'm not sure if regulation and oversight are the "best" or "only" way to prevent these tragedies. The NTSB investigation is probably more worthy and has brought about a culture of safety that is emulated worldwide. It is one of the best examples of government service out there, but regulation/oversight is not its function. It's the culture that drives the prevention and the worldwide transportation economy.
To your point, many responses (including torts) are needed to prevent these tragedies.
Don/TressiesGirl,
The NTSB report/What Happened ==> https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MM031.aspx
--> The preliminary root cause is an electrical breaker failure
--> It is unclear if they were maintained to spec
The DOJ settlement Nancy is referring to ==> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlement-over-100m-civil-lawsuit-against-owner-and-operator-vessel-destroyed
-->The settlement was for the public response only and did not include any damages for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
-->I think Don is asking for the industry to foot the rebuild. That is legitimate but still needs to be vetted.
-->In the meantime, bridges are public infrastructures that need to justify themselves - I don't know about the economics of that, but it has considerable local and federal benefits.
Best, Tim
we already paid to build it in the first place.... maintenance is one thing.
I had no idea this is what really happened. Very shocking and unbelievable.
Thank you for these thoughtful and informative podcasts. I have a question about the Social Security Fairness Act. Was that also signed into law by President Biden?
Where should I go to further research this bill.?
Dabid
David,
This link is tracking H.R.82 - Social Security Fairness Act of 2023 ==> https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82
Is that the one you were thinking of? If so the status is there - not signed by President as of now.
Tim