"Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'."
So the question is: how would you fix this? Because here's a fact for you: the government spends MASSIVELY more money today to fix that "income inequity" today than it ever has... and yet we have more inequity now than -- almost -- we ever have.
Intentions are not results. Lots of well-intended government programs have left us less well off.
There is a very strong positive correlation between government actions and spending intended to decrease inequity, and inequity.
So what are you going to do? More of the same? Probably not a good idea.
"The title says "scooter". The summary says "scooter". The article says "scooter". But you disagree with everyone and use unique definitions for all words. No real point when you either don't know Engish, or are being argumentative for the sake of arguing."
It's NOT the kind of scooter you're talking about, like a Razer scooter or similar which don't put a big box right between your legs. That's what I meant, and I think it was pretty damned obvious.
Of course it's a scooter, technically, but it's not a scooter LIKE most scooters on the street today, okay? The box between the legs is a safety issue if you want to "step off and run" like you suggested.
Further, neither OP or TFA say how fast it is. The electric scooter I had went significantly faster than most people can just "step off and run". If this one goes that fast then good luck "stepping off and running" at 15 mph or more with a big box between your legs.
I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you. But they still did do the animation, the soundtrack, etc. Lots of movies are made about "true stories" or not-so-true stories and legends and myths. They're still movies, and they still required artistic input to make them.
Like the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". I thought it was pretty inventive, even if the story has already been told a few million times.
"The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories."
Ahem. Yes, they are. They build their own 3D animation studios. They hire their own artists (not up-and-coming talented bands or movie stars) in-house. Disney has almost always done it that way.
Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.
"I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate."
And that has, too.
"??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people... You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."
Again you're trying to make pseudo-logical arguments but failing. It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.
"... and making outrageous claims."
You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.
"Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
"given the historical evidence."
"There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda."
No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing. I've presented evidence. You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way. All you've done is make bald assertions that "you are wrong" and "it's all in your mind" and "you are brainwashed."
These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.
"With hindsight Zuckerberg made no mistake. But for every Zuckerberg who drops out and makes Billions anyway, there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust. Anecdotes are not data."
And I'm wondering why OP places Zuckerberg in "the top quartile of talent". He's an unscrupulous guy who got lucky and made a fortune from a website made in PHP, built on an idea he stole from someone else.
"Well, if you can make random observations that I find useless, I sure can make random statements that you may find useless. Like this."
Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game... and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim, given the historical evidence.
Nice trolling, if that's what you intended. But whether you intended it or not, that's what you're doing and I have no need to waste more time here.
"Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola."
It's not either-or. Many "content creators" are their own publishers, and are responsible for at least as much copyright abuse as publishers-only. (We're looking at you, Disney.)
"your firefox is faster cause its cached. The apps you don't use often aint..."
Nope. Not on this machine.
I agree that the startup time of Firefox is a bit longer. But the performance is better. So since I have a browser running all the time for my work, startup time is not much of an issue, but performance is.
Further, what I use them for is testing pages that are constantly changing, so caching is not an issue.
"I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument."
It wasn't an argument intended to prove my point. It was an observation based on experience. You seem to have tunnel vision in that regard.
"Because they are illogical, or so I would say."
We already know this. But that statement is no more "logical argument" than the observation I made. So why are you bothering?
"Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do."
Now you're trying to read my mind. I have not "disregarded" those things.
"Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people.."
This.
Contrary to what OP and TFA say, the Google-lawyer article wasn't "anti-copyright" at all. It was anti-copyright-ABUSE, and anti-copyright-TROLLING. There is a pretty damned big difference. Leaving off those last parts is disingenuous to the point of lying.
It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation". Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. Including Russia and China.
"Actually, didn't come out that Fukushima actually cut a lot of corners over the years, so that by the time of the disaster they didn't even fully comply with the 1960's era safety regulations?"
Yes. For just one example, there was a "temporary" waste storage unit at the reactor that was designed to store spent rods and the like for only something like 60-90 days. But in fact they had been taking waste that was supposed to be sent elsewhere, and instead stockpiling it in that "temporary" storage, for years.
Bill Gates has said himself that these days he devotes most of his time to their Foundation and its efforts.
"The only thing common core should be is, a complete set of educational material freely available, including texts, software programs, videos and lesson plans. "
I agree. That is what a "common core" should be. But that isn't what it IS.
On my Mac, the Chrome app is 6 times the size of Firefox, and far slower. Just sayin'.
I keep them updated. I don't use Chrome except when I have to because it's too slow (with NO bookmarks or plugins) versus my Firefox (with a shitload of bookmarks and lots of plugins).
I use these things in my daily work. Or rather, I use Firefox in my daily work because Chrome and Safari are so slow. But I have to check compatibility with them so I keep them around and do use them sometimes.
That's on my Mac. YMMV on your computer or on Windows.
"So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?"
No, I'm pointing to current societies that still exist today only because they have adopted more reasonable economic principles, which allow individuals to profit from their own labor. The contrast is clear, and the reasons for it are also.
"Who says there would be an absence of personal gain?"
There WAS absence of personal gain, in the examples I pointed to. Are you really so thoroughly missing the point here?
"Much like copyright itself."
You keep saying so, but you have offered exactly zero evidence. Merely statements of ideology.
I wouldn't pay $300, much less the asking price of $6000.
Heads up to potential buyers: have you ever hit a 1" rock with tiny wheels like that? Showing up to work with road rash on your face probably would not go over well.
"That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright."
Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.
You weren't "making points" at all. You were simply making bald claims of philosophy.
Now, I happen to be somewhat on your side when it comes to GP's statement about "deserving" somebody elses' work. But that doesn't mean I agree with you about copyright in general not being useful or good.
We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China. In both cases, their production of innovative invention and art was reduced to a fraction of what it had been. And in both cases, what innovation there was was almost strictly government-sponsored. They tended instead to just "borrow" what others had already developed in the way of both art and technology. I'm not saying their production of ideas stopped. But it was reduced rather drastically.
This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain, as a motivation to to innovate, results in less innovation. And it is not the only such evidence.
Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.
"The idea that the police can simply delete what they don't like or switch of the device when ever they feel like it, is a very false premise in terms of the law. Lost evidence immediately creates doubts about the veracity of statements against those who lost or purposefully failed to gather evidence."
Sorry, but no. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In my case, "There is no video. There never was." Even though recording under those circumstances was routine practice, and the red light on the video camera was on. And they had no explanation as to why they "just didn't record" that particular time. There just "was never a recording" and the judge accepted that.
This would change if they were required to record everything, every time, and absence of recording caused real problems for them. That's why "personal" recorders for police are important: even if one video "went missing", there would be others. Absence of more than one at any given time is suspicious, indeed.
One way to ensure that videos are taken would be to presume in favor of the plaintiff if complaints are brought against police and they "lost" the video. I know that will sound extreme to some people, and I admit it goes a bit far to make a general rule like that. I am a big fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. But still, something must be done to ensure accountability. I speak again as someone who has lived in an area where it is easy to demonstrate there have been problems with the police.
Slashdot Mirror
Look... I have to live with it in my work, okay? But it's anything but fun to work with.
For computer-to-computer data interchange, JSON is not bad. But it's about as human-readable as the Voynich Manuscript.
"Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'."
So the question is: how would you fix this? Because here's a fact for you: the government spends MASSIVELY more money today to fix that "income inequity" today than it ever has... and yet we have more inequity now than -- almost -- we ever have.
Intentions are not results. Lots of well-intended government programs have left us less well off.
There is a very strong positive correlation between government actions and spending intended to decrease inequity, and inequity.
So what are you going to do? More of the same? Probably not a good idea.
"The title says "scooter". The summary says "scooter". The article says "scooter". But you disagree with everyone and use unique definitions for all words. No real point when you either don't know Engish, or are being argumentative for the sake of arguing."
It's NOT the kind of scooter you're talking about, like a Razer scooter or similar which don't put a big box right between your legs. That's what I meant, and I think it was pretty damned obvious.
Of course it's a scooter, technically, but it's not a scooter LIKE most scooters on the street today, okay? The box between the legs is a safety issue if you want to "step off and run" like you suggested.
Further, neither OP or TFA say how fast it is. The electric scooter I had went significantly faster than most people can just "step off and run". If this one goes that fast then good luck "stepping off and running" at 15 mph or more with a big box between your legs.
I think you just like arguing with me.
"1. Convince people to work for the company"
He started up the company about the time when jobs for web developers were pretty hard to come by. Almost anybody would have worked for him.
"2. Convince a lot of people to use the web site."
People went there because they were tired of MySpace and thought Facebook was somehow better.
"3. Convince people to part with their money to give the company an insane valuation."
There have been an awful lot of insane tech valuations in the last 10 or 15 years. It's hardly unique to Facebook.
I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you. But they still did do the animation, the soundtrack, etc. Lots of movies are made about "true stories" or not-so-true stories and legends and myths. They're still movies, and they still required artistic input to make them.
Like the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". I thought it was pretty inventive, even if the story has already been told a few million times.
"The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories."
Ahem. Yes, they are. They build their own 3D animation studios. They hire their own artists (not up-and-coming talented bands or movie stars) in-house. Disney has almost always done it that way.
Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.
"No idea what you're talking about."
That has been obvious for a while now.
"I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate."
And that has, too.
"??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people ... You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."
Again you're trying to make pseudo-logical arguments but failing. It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.
"... and making outrageous claims."
You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.
"Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
"given the historical evidence."
"There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda."
No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing. I've presented evidence. You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way. All you've done is make bald assertions that "you are wrong" and "it's all in your mind" and "you are brainwashed."
These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.
Goodbye.
"With hindsight Zuckerberg made no mistake. But for every Zuckerberg who drops out and makes Billions anyway, there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust. Anecdotes are not data."
And I'm wondering why OP places Zuckerberg in "the top quartile of talent". He's an unscrupulous guy who got lucky and made a fortune from a website made in PHP, built on an idea he stole from someone else.
So what?
"Well, if you can make random observations that I find useless, I sure can make random statements that you may find useless. Like this."
Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game... and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim, given the historical evidence.
Nice trolling, if that's what you intended. But whether you intended it or not, that's what you're doing and I have no need to waste more time here.
"Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola."
It's not either-or. Many "content creators" are their own publishers, and are responsible for at least as much copyright abuse as publishers-only. (We're looking at you, Disney.)
"Have you ever ridden a scooter? You can run faster than that, so if you "crash" your scooter, you just step off."
Yes, I have, and rocks that size are a problem. You avoid them when you can for that reason.
Besides, this isn't a scooter, and it's not as easy to just step off of it. There is a briefcase between your legs.
I had an electric scooter. Fortunately, though, it had 10" wheels with pneumatic tires. Even so, a 1" rock could give you quite a jolt.
"your firefox is faster cause its cached. The apps you don't use often aint..."
Nope. Not on this machine.
I agree that the startup time of Firefox is a bit longer. But the performance is better. So since I have a browser running all the time for my work, startup time is not much of an issue, but performance is.
Further, what I use them for is testing pages that are constantly changing, so caching is not an issue.
"I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument."
It wasn't an argument intended to prove my point. It was an observation based on experience. You seem to have tunnel vision in that regard.
"Because they are illogical, or so I would say."
We already know this. But that statement is no more "logical argument" than the observation I made. So why are you bothering?
"Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do."
Now you're trying to read my mind. I have not "disregarded" those things.
"Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people.."
This.
Contrary to what OP and TFA say, the Google-lawyer article wasn't "anti-copyright" at all. It was anti-copyright-ABUSE, and anti-copyright-TROLLING. There is a pretty damned big difference. Leaving off those last parts is disingenuous to the point of lying.
You still don't get it, do you?
It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation". Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. Including Russia and China.
"Actually, didn't come out that Fukushima actually cut a lot of corners over the years, so that by the time of the disaster they didn't even fully comply with the 1960's era safety regulations?"
Yes. For just one example, there was a "temporary" waste storage unit at the reactor that was designed to store spent rods and the like for only something like 60-90 days. But in fact they had been taking waste that was supposed to be sent elsewhere, and instead stockpiling it in that "temporary" storage, for years.
"The only thing common core should be is, a complete set of educational material freely available, including texts, software programs, videos and lesson plans. "
I agree. That is what a "common core" should be. But that isn't what it IS.
"Yeah, but it's fast and it's not bloated"
On my Mac, the Chrome app is 6 times the size of Firefox, and far slower. Just sayin'.
I keep them updated. I don't use Chrome except when I have to because it's too slow (with NO bookmarks or plugins) versus my Firefox (with a shitload of bookmarks and lots of plugins).
I use these things in my daily work. Or rather, I use Firefox in my daily work because Chrome and Safari are so slow. But I have to check compatibility with them so I keep them around and do use them sometimes.
That's on my Mac. YMMV on your computer or on Windows.
"I make no extraordinary claims. The evidence people have brought forth simply do not disprove the null hypothesis."
This isn't a controlled experiment, so they don't have to. How ridiculous.
If you want to conduct such a study -- preferably blind or even better double-blind -- I'll wait.
"... but I do not see how you would come to that conclusion."
Obviously. I already mentioned this.
"I'm not the one in need of evidence."
Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim, which seems to violate both common sense and the evidence that IS available, I'd say you are.
"So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?"
No, I'm pointing to current societies that still exist today only because they have adopted more reasonable economic principles, which allow individuals to profit from their own labor. The contrast is clear, and the reasons for it are also.
"Who says there would be an absence of personal gain?"
There WAS absence of personal gain, in the examples I pointed to. Are you really so thoroughly missing the point here?
"Much like copyright itself."
You keep saying so, but you have offered exactly zero evidence. Merely statements of ideology.
"Really... it's 2014. A Briefcase?!"
I wouldn't pay $300, much less the asking price of $6000.
Heads up to potential buyers: have you ever hit a 1" rock with tiny wheels like that? Showing up to work with road rash on your face probably would not go over well.
Speaking as someone who experienced it, I say: "Amen."
"That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright."
Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.
You weren't "making points" at all. You were simply making bald claims of philosophy.
Now, I happen to be somewhat on your side when it comes to GP's statement about "deserving" somebody elses' work. But that doesn't mean I agree with you about copyright in general not being useful or good.
We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China. In both cases, their production of innovative invention and art was reduced to a fraction of what it had been. And in both cases, what innovation there was was almost strictly government-sponsored. They tended instead to just "borrow" what others had already developed in the way of both art and technology. I'm not saying their production of ideas stopped. But it was reduced rather drastically.
This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain, as a motivation to to innovate, results in less innovation. And it is not the only such evidence.
Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.
"The idea that the police can simply delete what they don't like or switch of the device when ever they feel like it, is a very false premise in terms of the law. Lost evidence immediately creates doubts about the veracity of statements against those who lost or purposefully failed to gather evidence."
Sorry, but no. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In my case, "There is no video. There never was." Even though recording under those circumstances was routine practice, and the red light on the video camera was on. And they had no explanation as to why they "just didn't record" that particular time. There just "was never a recording" and the judge accepted that.
This would change if they were required to record everything, every time, and absence of recording caused real problems for them. That's why "personal" recorders for police are important: even if one video "went missing", there would be others. Absence of more than one at any given time is suspicious, indeed.
One way to ensure that videos are taken would be to presume in favor of the plaintiff if complaints are brought against police and they "lost" the video. I know that will sound extreme to some people, and I admit it goes a bit far to make a general rule like that. I am a big fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. But still, something must be done to ensure accountability. I speak again as someone who has lived in an area where it is easy to demonstrate there have been problems with the police.