Well, recipes may as well be public domain. The representation is copyrightable but if you change the proportions or wording or just units of measurement, it's a functional idea, not art, and can be redistributed as much as you want.
No, if you work for someone and have a contract with them stating intellectual property developed at work belongs to them not to you, then fine it's theirs. If it's not stated or says it's yours, it's yours. If you write code at work and at home, there is probably a grey area that's made black or white in contract. That's why we have contracts.
This is a good idea, but it needs more thought put into it before implementation.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say it was impossible. It's also not impossible to walk or cycle in Phoenix. I've never been to Phoenix in the summer but I have been to the Persian Gulf in the summer (and walked more than one human being ever should) and I'm from Upstate New York, and have gone hiking and camping in the Adirondacks in mid-winter. Most Americans would not like or do either with a choice.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
I grew up in and just moved back to Upstate New York. I've camped and hiked in the Adirondacks in the middle of winter and I've had to walk through Iraq and Kuwait in the middle of summer. In northern winters, there is no way to bundle appropriately if you're going more than a mile or two by foot or bike. You start warming up and you perspire worse than in 140 desert sun, or when you start you're not dressed warmly enough to avoid frostbite.
They distort the language of economics, but "less-than-optimal production and consumption" means something different to a them than it means in economics. Economically, optimal is what best responds to wants and needs, not some fuckheads' social agenda.
They're not arguing this from an economist's view. A healthy market is one that responds to needs and wants. They're saying people's wants are cheaper than their needs leading them to unhealthy habits. It is not an economic argument for junk food/soda tax.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 2, Funny
In the southern US, there's also the additional weather factor. Walking/biking in Phoenix?!
Yeah because walking around Buffalo in January would be so much better!
Yes, it makes so much more sense when you take out the profit motive in name. Take money from people you think harm society, in order to help with the needs of lobbyists. That is such a bullshit argument. Just because government does something, does not take out the profit motive out of it; it makes it compulsory.
I'm not saying regulation is never useful or that it never benefits society. I am saying that it raises barrier to entry for new enterprises and reduces competition, which does not benefit consumers. Saying that more regulation is the answer is dangerous. Governments don't often peacefully relinquish a power once they have it.
Run any cables they want? Seriously, you think that's a necessary prohibition? I do think companies should be able run any cables they want so long as they have the property owner's permission (and without it, they can go fuck themselves; I don't give a shit about easements).
That is the most ludicrous ethnocentric statement: "Wild west bullshit of the free market situation in the US"? Really?
Wow, so a relatively unknown stranger could enter the marketplace and compete if he had a quicker draw?
BTW, what standards are you talking about from regulation? GSM was standardized by ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, an industry association. Because of government regulation and substantially less free trade, a few competitors could start in each country.
We have a lot of companies with deep pockets influencing politicians and bureaucrats writing regulations, with very few to no lobbyists countering their influence in our government. More regulation is not the answer. The free market is the answer and we won't let it in. Perhaps different regulation, but the free market is dead in the US. (Just no quite buried yet.)
If we're the wild west, then we have several sheriffs and they're competing with the federal marshals and they're corrupt enough that we're waiting on an outlaw with a faster draw. (OK, OK, I'm practicing in the mirror.)
We have another analogy: "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." Everyone wants their say in whether or not something can or should run without doing anything to make it run. (BTW, overall, during Bush's administration, for every change making regulation weaker, they made another one three times stronger. Still think more regulation instead of different or less regulation is the answer?
So, go on and keep telling yourself that we're horribly uncivilized, but don't say that keeping competitors out of the market makes the market more competitive.
No, we have plenty of regulation. The problem is lobbyists have more influence in Washington, DC, than average citizens. Lobbyists hired by those large corporations their influence to make sure that regulations keep costs up for any new entries into the market. "drags its feet on forcing... providers to open up their monopolies?" Monopolies don't exist in a vacuum. Monopolies have to be either not providing a good or service wanted by many or propped up by some other institution (government) to continue.
Ummm... no. This is not the free market at work and regulation does not keep the big companies in check. Big companies have money to pay for lobbyists that influence regulations being made and regulations end up raising the cost of new enterprises that would otherwise be able to compete and those big companies gain their oligopoly.
That it was never done before is not enough to get a patent under US law. The discovery or invention must be novel. They did not discover or invent rotating 90 degrees and it was not a novel concept.
The previous post said ".50 cal machineguns." The only claims that they used.50 cal rifles (not even machine guns) are from gun control advocacy groups and the GAO, on the theory that they could have obtained them, not that there was any evidence that they had.
The report by the ATF and the FBI said that there were 3.50 cal rifle magazines and 4.50 cal rifle magazine springs. If there is any.50 cal magazine-fed machine gun, there is one really stupid engineer. Magazines and springs do not make a machine gun and would be useless for a machine gun. Machine guns are generally belt-fed.
The source of this information? That conservative bastion, PBS. (If you didn't pick up on it, I was being sarcastic.) You could also try reading the Wikipedia article about it, before making unsubstantiated claims.
They did have a lot of weapons. So do a lot of people in Texas. (My brother just bought another gun in Texas.) Yes, they were a cult. And, so were many religions that today have hundreds of millions of followers. They also traded them. Weapons owned by civilians did not generally decrease in value during the Clinton administration. They were a good investment then and now.
If you want to argue that they were horrible people and the government is a scapegoat and did nothing wrong there, fine, then do that. But don't support it by claims that are demonstrably false. (And generally, even when government does get blamed for something not their fault, it doesn't come close to making up for blame they don't get that no one knows about.)
Google "define:fundamental". Here's the first result:
fundamental
cardinal; serving as an essential component
Hijacking a word to mean something only because of a way it was used in a title of a shitty book and saying it can't have meaning other than that, is lying. But, if you want to be pedantic, we talk about Fundamentalists and fundamentalists. Fundamentally, atheism has one fundamental belief: "there is no god." If you remove that fundamental belief, it's not atheism.
... stockpiling small arms, explosives and.50 caliber machineguns...
Umm.... Do a little research. There were no machine guns there. That was an unfounded allegation, for which they found no evidence. The Branch Davidians were and are a cult, but that's not illegal. So is Falun Gong, but in China it's illegal and that's bullshit.
Some Branch Davidians after the siege at Waco, against whom there were no allegations of wrongdoing were detained involuntarily for years afterwards as "material witnesses." (At least one was a British citizen who was not tried and only released in 2007 when he was deported.) The only forensic evidence that could be used to determine who started shooting first was conveniently lost by ATF. The ATF and the FBI illegally used military helicopters claiming (falsely and with no substantiation) that drugs were being made there.
When I was in high school, high school English teachers were disappointed that the state didn't require it anymore, and replaced it with a few others so they didn't have time to cover it. (But another Orwell tome, Animal Farm, was required.)
Suffering the most casualties has never been a good indication of one country's contribution to winning a world war. Inflicting the largest number of casualties, while maybe not the best possible standard, is a standard.
No, they don't bring it to us. They reveal themselves and the fact that they have it once we prove that we've developed it, too. Because, logically, the one thing that shows that we're beyond killing each other is new technology with the capacity to destroy even more than we could before.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, recipes may as well be public domain. The representation is copyrightable but if you change the proportions or wording or just units of measurement, it's a functional idea, not art, and can be redistributed as much as you want.
No, if you work for someone and have a contract with them stating intellectual property developed at work belongs to them not to you, then fine it's theirs. If it's not stated or says it's yours, it's yours. If you write code at work and at home, there is probably a grey area that's made black or white in contract. That's why we have contracts.
This is a good idea, but it needs more thought put into it before implementation.
I didn't say it was impossible. It's also not impossible to walk or cycle in Phoenix. I've never been to Phoenix in the summer but I have been to the Persian Gulf in the summer (and walked more than one human being ever should) and I'm from Upstate New York, and have gone hiking and camping in the Adirondacks in mid-winter. Most Americans would not like or do either with a choice.
I grew up in and just moved back to Upstate New York. I've camped and hiked in the Adirondacks in the middle of winter and I've had to walk through Iraq and Kuwait in the middle of summer. In northern winters, there is no way to bundle appropriately if you're going more than a mile or two by foot or bike. You start warming up and you perspire worse than in 140 desert sun, or when you start you're not dressed warmly enough to avoid frostbite.
Either is doable, neither is fun.
They distort the language of economics, but "less-than-optimal production and consumption" means something different to a them than it means in economics. Economically, optimal is what best responds to wants and needs, not some fuckheads' social agenda.
Both are being children; a perfect government and a perfect market are both idealized abstractions.
Very true. Fundamentally, this is about taking money away from someone through force and coercion because you don't agree of their diet.
That is insidious. How about instead a school computer voucher?
They're not arguing this from an economist's view. A healthy market is one that responds to needs and wants. They're saying people's wants are cheaper than their needs leading them to unhealthy habits. It is not an economic argument for junk food/soda tax.
In the southern US, there's also the additional weather factor. Walking/biking in Phoenix?!
Yeah because walking around Buffalo in January would be so much better!
and have cheaper ethanol!
Yes, it makes so much more sense when you take out the profit motive in name. Take money from people you think harm society, in order to help with the needs of lobbyists. That is such a bullshit argument. Just because government does something, does not take out the profit motive out of it; it makes it compulsory.
I'm not saying regulation is never useful or that it never benefits society. I am saying that it raises barrier to entry for new enterprises and reduces competition, which does not benefit consumers. Saying that more regulation is the answer is dangerous. Governments don't often peacefully relinquish a power once they have it.
Run any cables they want? Seriously, you think that's a necessary prohibition? I do think companies should be able run any cables they want so long as they have the property owner's permission (and without it, they can go fuck themselves; I don't give a shit about easements).
That is the most ludicrous ethnocentric statement: "Wild west bullshit of the free market situation in the US"? Really? Wow, so a relatively unknown stranger could enter the marketplace and compete if he had a quicker draw?
BTW, what standards are you talking about from regulation? GSM was standardized by ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, an industry association. Because of government regulation and substantially less free trade, a few competitors could start in each country.
We have a lot of companies with deep pockets influencing politicians and bureaucrats writing regulations, with very few to no lobbyists countering their influence in our government. More regulation is not the answer. The free market is the answer and we won't let it in. Perhaps different regulation, but the free market is dead in the US. (Just no quite buried yet.)
If we're the wild west, then we have several sheriffs and they're competing with the federal marshals and they're corrupt enough that we're waiting on an outlaw with a faster draw. (OK, OK, I'm practicing in the mirror.)
We have another analogy: "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." Everyone wants their say in whether or not something can or should run without doing anything to make it run. (BTW, overall, during Bush's administration, for every change making regulation weaker, they made another one three times stronger. Still think more regulation instead of different or less regulation is the answer?
So, go on and keep telling yourself that we're horribly uncivilized, but don't say that keeping competitors out of the market makes the market more competitive.
No, we have plenty of regulation. The problem is lobbyists have more influence in Washington, DC, than average citizens. Lobbyists hired by those large corporations their influence to make sure that regulations keep costs up for any new entries into the market. "drags its feet on forcing... providers to open up their monopolies?" Monopolies don't exist in a vacuum. Monopolies have to be either not providing a good or service wanted by many or propped up by some other institution (government) to continue.
Ummm... no. This is not the free market at work and regulation does not keep the big companies in check. Big companies have money to pay for lobbyists that influence regulations being made and regulations end up raising the cost of new enterprises that would otherwise be able to compete and those big companies gain their oligopoly.
That it was never done before is not enough to get a patent under US law. The discovery or invention must be novel. They did not discover or invent rotating 90 degrees and it was not a novel concept.
The previous post said ".50 cal machineguns." The only claims that they used .50 cal rifles (not even machine guns) are from gun control advocacy groups and the GAO, on the theory that they could have obtained them, not that there was any evidence that they had.
The report by the ATF and the FBI said that there were 3 .50 cal rifle magazines and 4 .50 cal rifle magazine springs . If there is any .50 cal magazine-fed machine gun, there is one really stupid engineer. Magazines and springs do not make a machine gun and would be useless for a machine gun. Machine guns are generally belt-fed.
The source of this information? That conservative bastion, PBS. (If you didn't pick up on it, I was being sarcastic.) You could also try reading the Wikipedia article about it, before making unsubstantiated claims.
They did have a lot of weapons. So do a lot of people in Texas. (My brother just bought another gun in Texas.) Yes, they were a cult. And, so were many religions that today have hundreds of millions of followers. They also traded them. Weapons owned by civilians did not generally decrease in value during the Clinton administration. They were a good investment then and now.
If you want to argue that they were horrible people and the government is a scapegoat and did nothing wrong there, fine, then do that. But don't support it by claims that are demonstrably false. (And generally, even when government does get blamed for something not their fault, it doesn't come close to making up for blame they don't get that no one knows about.)
Google "define:fundamental". Here's the first result:
fundamental cardinal; serving as an essential componentHijacking a word to mean something only because of a way it was used in a title of a shitty book and saying it can't have meaning other than that, is lying. But, if you want to be pedantic, we talk about Fundamentalists and fundamentalists. Fundamentally, atheism has one fundamental belief: "there is no god." If you remove that fundamental belief, it's not atheism.
... stockpiling small arms, explosives and .50 caliber machineguns...
Umm.... Do a little research. There were no machine guns there. That was an unfounded allegation, for which they found no evidence. The Branch Davidians were and are a cult, but that's not illegal. So is Falun Gong, but in China it's illegal and that's bullshit.
Some Branch Davidians after the siege at Waco, against whom there were no allegations of wrongdoing were detained involuntarily for years afterwards as "material witnesses." (At least one was a British citizen who was not tried and only released in 2007 when he was deported.) The only forensic evidence that could be used to determine who started shooting first was conveniently lost by ATF. The ATF and the FBI illegally used military helicopters claiming (falsely and with no substantiation) that drugs were being made there.
When I was in high school, high school English teachers were disappointed that the state didn't require it anymore, and replaced it with a few others so they didn't have time to cover it. (But another Orwell tome, Animal Farm, was required.)
Suffering the most casualties has never been a good indication of one country's contribution to winning a world war. Inflicting the largest number of casualties, while maybe not the best possible standard, is a standard.
No, they don't bring it to us. They reveal themselves and the fact that they have it once we prove that we've developed it, too. Because, logically, the one thing that shows that we're beyond killing each other is new technology with the capacity to destroy even more than we could before.