"Again though, you don't see this occurring in Socialist countries, you see it occurring in the US. Why would the answer be less Socialism?"
I already answered this, but I will repeat: it has occurred (and increased) right along with the increase of Socialist policies within the United States government.
I am not claiming here that it is a cause-and-effect relationship, but I do say that the existing evidence does not indicate that more Socialism is a good thing.
By the way, though: you do, too, see it in Socialist countries. Sweden and Denmark used to be among the most productive nations, per capita, in the world. Since they have adopted a more Socialist economic model, the economies of Sweden, and particularly Denmark, have been slowly stagnating. Now Denmark's per-capita productivity is no better than average. That's not a good result, over just a few decades.
"Reason 1: Jurors can be influenced by brand loyalty."
Duh. But the more relevant issue is: would a "tribunal" not be swayed by brand loyalty? Is there any reason to believe that would be the case?
"Reason 2: Juries are too easily swayed by âoeheâ(TM)s a copycatâ"
Quote Posner: "patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats."
Posner may have reason to believe that, but it's still nothing more than his opinion about what someone else is thinking. It isn't actual evidence that this point is valid. Once again, I have no reason to believe a "tribunal" would be much different.
"Reason 3: Jury trials over patents are a waste of money"
Quote article: "While the companies would have blown a bundle no matter what, the jury presence added millions to the tab."
Huh? Um... excuse me, but the trial was a month long, and jurors don't get paid squat, nor are their accommodations expensive. A juror I know not long ago got locked into a 9-day trial, he got paid less than minimum wage for it, and the lunch he got EVERY DAY was a peanut butter sandwich and an apple.
Even if Posner's court is more generous than that, there is no way in hell the jury cost "millions".
In summary: While some juries might be more responsible than others, I don't have any reason to believe that "a tribunal" would be any better at judging patents than the patent office itself. After all, the patent office is full of professionals, too.
"By what measure has the US economy been on a downward slide over the past 70 years?"
By rampant inflation that has not been matched by a proportional increase in income.
The early data is from a book on historical economics. The data since is from our own government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the government's own figures, this is the first generation since the depression in which the youngsters will almost certainly be less well off in standard of living than their parents were. And the reasons are right there in that chart.
"On the other hand, why can't we merge Democracy and Socialism, and try to achieve something greater than either of the two alone?"
I don't know of any reason that we could not do so. I'm just not convinced that it is a good idea.
The United States over the last 6-7 decades has moved quite a ways toward more Socialist policies, and when you chart our economy (and I have done so), it has been on a downward slide he entire time.
I would have to see strong evidence to counteract the evidence I already have, to be convinced that more of the same would do any good.
The "mainstream" AGW tale is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum were both less extreme than scientists thought in the past, and that we are experiencing "extreme" weather that is not in the historical (by that I mean ice cores, etc.) record at all.
I'm not arguing that it is the truth. I'm simply saying that is the story that has been coming out of places like CRU and NASA.
Deny it all you like: it's all over the press and even the peer-reviewed publications.
"And we can't just say "Oh, it's all due to Sun's activity. It shined more back then, and it's starting to shine more now.""
I'm not arguing any of those things at this time. Don't read more into my words than I put into them. I'm simply saying that whether this is true or not, or whether the mainstream propaganda is true or not, they are contradictory. And they are.
"That's melatonin not melanin. Melatonin regulated sleep."
All sleep-regulated sheep aside, melatonin supplements are cheap and plentiful. The tablets most often come in 3mg size but a doctor said that's "almost certainly too much". Take 1 mg (or 1/2 a 3 mg), about half an hour to an hour before bedtime.
Caution: taking melatonin (especially 3 mg) can cause you to feel groggy in the morning if you haven't gotten a full 8 hours.
Well, I can say one thing: rocks might be in layers, but you aren't going to see those layers in lava tubes, since the surface rock of those (usually thick) is deposited all at the same time.
Unless they can find a collapse somewhere, lava tubes are probably not worth more than a very brief look.
"Do you know any truly informed individuals who deny climate change?"
No. But I *DO* know of a rather large list of responsible and reputable scientists who do not agree that it is human-caused. That is not the same thing.
But part of the point I was making is that generally speaking, because of its structure, Socialism is easier to abuse than a generally Democratic form of government. The latter can be abused too of course, but it's harder and takes longer.
"I love how you see Socialism as some great evil. What exactly about Socialism do you find so terrible?"
You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to make Socialism out to be some great evil (though do I think it has some very serious problems).
But Socialism -- as practiced by the great post-WWII Socialist states -- was evil. Not necessarily because it was Socialism, per se, but because of the way it was practiced. Or distorted or abused, if you prefer to put it that way.
"So if you leave your house and someone breaks a window and robs you the police should arrest you for the burglary?"
I don't think that's a valid analogy. It's more like: I put my money in the bank, and the bank leaves it sitting on a table next to the door where anybody can grab it. Sure... actually grabbing it is bank robbery. But pointing out to the public whose money is being left out in the breeze is not.
I'd far rather have somebody do the latter than have to put up with the former.
"This is not evolution, though. This is Creation, or at least an intelligent design. The progression (and the inherent socioeconomic imbalances in the progression) is one of those pitfalls, which may be possible to avoid in a future political system."
I don't disagree; however Marx presented Communism and Socialism in a more-or-less evolutionary context; it was necessary to go through the one to get to the other. But everybody has always gotten stuck at that step.
At times I have suspected that nobody was ever actually intended to get past that step, but that it was just a justification for the imposition of Socialism in the first place.
"Hate to say it, but the only option left is to anonymously present the details as spectacularly as possible to the world. Once the bank gets hammered by thieves exploiting the hold, they will finally be forced to address the issue. Its better for the bank to be publicly humiliated, or a hundred honest customers get (temporarily) financially hammered, than to have a professional criminal stealing from the bank as quietly as possible."
I agree. This is the point I have been trying to make.
"Oh ya then how did the hackers find it the security hole? bank did just say hay here,s our security hole. In fact they hacked it, that's against the law already because they did STEAL the passwords. And no i don't expect someone who tells you hay your wallet fell out to be prosecuted. That's just a plain stupid argument by a person who doesn't have a clue or doesn't want a clue. Ya just want to complain."
This doesn't even deserve an answer. But I'm going to give you one anyway. No thanks necessary!
So you are saying to me: you don't care that the banks have been criminally irresponsible with people's data? You don't CARE, that somebody ELSE -- a criminal somebody else -- could have found this data and just stolen everybody's money, instead of making it public?
Whose fucking side are you on?
I have personal experience with a bank that refused to close a GAPING, OUTRAGEOUS security hole that I pointed out to them, for over a year! After about 6 months of it, with no change, I decided to go to the press with my story. You know what happened? The press and TV wanted nothing to do with it. The bank was a major customer. They weren't about to publish anything negative about it.
So guess what avenue was left? Only one. In order to close this gaping hole, only one thing would suffice: going public with the data. THAT makes people stand up and listen.
THE BANKS are the criminals here, and the press are in bed with them. If you think differently, you are deluding yourself.
And the release of data is the only way they (and a lot of people, like you) will even pay attention.
So take your criticism and stuff it. I have been there. These people did the right thing.
I find it very amusing that here on Slashdot, a few days after a paper claiming that such melts are actually not unusual, along comes another paper that is "gloom and doom". And yet, many people seem to be irrationally attached to the gloom-and-doom scenario, and have largely ignored the former, even though it was published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal, and the reviewers found nothing wrong with it.
"I would consider the repeal of Glass-Steagall to be a massive de-regulation, hence my comments on the 2000's being less regulated. There may have been more regulations numerically, but they had less reach and power."
Yes, agreed once again. Terminology. If you consider the volume and depth of regulation, banks and Wall Street were never more regulated before 2008. It was the quality of that regulation that was... well... "insufficient" doesn't really do it justice. I would lean more toward "criminal".
"This though is one of the key indicators that free market capitalism will never work. You, and everyone else, is to stupid to be considered part of a well informed poplulace.
Good game."
I can honestly say that in all my years on Slashdot, this is the single most incoherent piece of shit I have yet read.
Slashdot Mirror
"Again though, you don't see this occurring in Socialist countries, you see it occurring in the US. Why would the answer be less Socialism?"
I already answered this, but I will repeat: it has occurred (and increased) right along with the increase of Socialist policies within the United States government.
I am not claiming here that it is a cause-and-effect relationship, but I do say that the existing evidence does not indicate that more Socialism is a good thing.
By the way, though: you do, too, see it in Socialist countries. Sweden and Denmark used to be among the most productive nations, per capita, in the world. Since they have adopted a more Socialist economic model, the economies of Sweden, and particularly Denmark, have been slowly stagnating. Now Denmark's per-capita productivity is no better than average. That's not a good result, over just a few decades.
"This article is about Kent Beck."
But the SUMMARY was about Facebook and Square.
"Reason 1: Jurors can be influenced by brand loyalty."
Duh. But the more relevant issue is: would a "tribunal" not be swayed by brand loyalty? Is there any reason to believe that would be the case?
"Reason 2: Juries are too easily swayed by âoeheâ(TM)s a copycatâ"
Quote Posner: "patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats."
Posner may have reason to believe that, but it's still nothing more than his opinion about what someone else is thinking. It isn't actual evidence that this point is valid. Once again, I have no reason to believe a "tribunal" would be much different.
"Reason 3: Jury trials over patents are a waste of money"
Quote article: "While the companies would have blown a bundle no matter what, the jury presence added millions to the tab."
Huh? Um... excuse me, but the trial was a month long, and jurors don't get paid squat, nor are their accommodations expensive. A juror I know not long ago got locked into a 9-day trial, he got paid less than minimum wage for it, and the lunch he got EVERY DAY was a peanut butter sandwich and an apple.
Even if Posner's court is more generous than that, there is no way in hell the jury cost "millions".
In summary: While some juries might be more responsible than others, I don't have any reason to believe that "a tribunal" would be any better at judging patents than the patent office itself. After all, the patent office is full of professionals, too.
"The only measure I can think of that would show the US declining over the past 70 years is relative to other countries such as Germany or China. "
Please see the link in my reply to the other poster.
"By what measure has the US economy been on a downward slide over the past 70 years?"
By rampant inflation that has not been matched by a proportional increase in income.
The early data is from a book on historical economics. The data since is from our own government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the government's own figures, this is the first generation since the depression in which the youngsters will almost certainly be less well off in standard of living than their parents were. And the reasons are right there in that chart.
"Some people get on with pairing, some don't."
And if they're just getting into it now, they're only about 6 years behind the curve.
But why should I be surprised? Considering that Facebook was based on PHP?
"On the other hand, why can't we merge Democracy and Socialism, and try to achieve something greater than either of the two alone?"
I don't know of any reason that we could not do so. I'm just not convinced that it is a good idea.
The United States over the last 6-7 decades has moved quite a ways toward more Socialist policies, and when you chart our economy (and I have done so), it has been on a downward slide he entire time.
I would have to see strong evidence to counteract the evidence I already have, to be convinced that more of the same would do any good.
"No it does not."
Yes, it does.
The "mainstream" AGW tale is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum were both less extreme than scientists thought in the past, and that we are experiencing "extreme" weather that is not in the historical (by that I mean ice cores, etc.) record at all.
I'm not arguing that it is the truth. I'm simply saying that is the story that has been coming out of places like CRU and NASA.
Deny it all you like: it's all over the press and even the peer-reviewed publications.
"And we can't just say "Oh, it's all due to Sun's activity. It shined more back then, and it's starting to shine more now.""
I'm not arguing any of those things at this time. Don't read more into my words than I put into them. I'm simply saying that whether this is true or not, or whether the mainstream propaganda is true or not, they are contradictory. And they are.
"That's melatonin not melanin. Melatonin regulated sleep."
All sleep-regulated sheep aside, melatonin supplements are cheap and plentiful. The tablets most often come in 3mg size but a doctor said that's "almost certainly too much". Take 1 mg (or 1/2 a 3 mg), about half an hour to an hour before bedtime.
Caution: taking melatonin (especially 3 mg) can cause you to feel groggy in the morning if you haven't gotten a full 8 hours.
"I'd love to see what's in Martian caves."
Well, I can say one thing: rocks might be in layers, but you aren't going to see those layers in lava tubes, since the surface rock of those (usually thick) is deposited all at the same time.
Unless they can find a collapse somewhere, lava tubes are probably not worth more than a very brief look.
"That's just the way of saying "Yeah, sure. It happened before.""
Yes, you are correct. "Not unusual" was not the proper choice of words. Mea culpa.
"In this case, "before" lies somewhere between 9,200 and 2,500 years ago."
Roughly, yes. But so what? It still contradicts the "mainstream" AGW propaganda.
"Do you know any truly informed individuals who deny climate change?"
No. But I *DO* know of a rather large list of responsible and reputable scientists who do not agree that it is human-caused. That is not the same thing.
But part of the point I was making is that generally speaking, because of its structure, Socialism is easier to abuse than a generally Democratic form of government. The latter can be abused too of course, but it's harder and takes longer.
"I love how you see Socialism as some great evil. What exactly about Socialism do you find so terrible?"
You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to make Socialism out to be some great evil (though do I think it has some very serious problems).
But Socialism -- as practiced by the great post-WWII Socialist states -- was evil. Not necessarily because it was Socialism, per se, but because of the way it was practiced. Or distorted or abused, if you prefer to put it that way.
"So if you leave your house and someone breaks a window and robs you the police should arrest you for the burglary?"
I don't think that's a valid analogy. It's more like: I put my money in the bank, and the bank leaves it sitting on a table next to the door where anybody can grab it. Sure... actually grabbing it is bank robbery. But pointing out to the public whose money is being left out in the breeze is not.
I'd far rather have somebody do the latter than have to put up with the former.
"This is not evolution, though. This is Creation, or at least an intelligent design. The progression (and the inherent socioeconomic imbalances in the progression) is one of those pitfalls, which may be possible to avoid in a future political system."
I don't disagree; however Marx presented Communism and Socialism in a more-or-less evolutionary context; it was necessary to go through the one to get to the other. But everybody has always gotten stuck at that step.
At times I have suspected that nobody was ever actually intended to get past that step, but that it was just a justification for the imposition of Socialism in the first place.
"Hate to say it, but the only option left is to anonymously present the details as spectacularly as possible to the world. Once the bank gets hammered by thieves exploiting the hold, they will finally be forced to address the issue. Its better for the bank to be publicly humiliated, or a hundred honest customers get (temporarily) financially hammered, than to have a professional criminal stealing from the bank as quietly as possible."
I agree. This is the point I have been trying to make.
"Oh ya then how did the hackers find it the security hole? bank did just say hay here,s our security hole. In fact they hacked it, that's against the law already because they did STEAL the passwords. And no i don't expect someone who tells you hay your wallet fell out to be prosecuted. That's just a plain stupid argument by a person who doesn't have a clue or doesn't want a clue. Ya just want to complain."
This doesn't even deserve an answer. But I'm going to give you one anyway. No thanks necessary!
So you are saying to me: you don't care that the banks have been criminally irresponsible with people's data? You don't CARE, that somebody ELSE -- a criminal somebody else -- could have found this data and just stolen everybody's money, instead of making it public?
Whose fucking side are you on?
I have personal experience with a bank that refused to close a GAPING, OUTRAGEOUS security hole that I pointed out to them, for over a year! After about 6 months of it, with no change, I decided to go to the press with my story. You know what happened? The press and TV wanted nothing to do with it. The bank was a major customer. They weren't about to publish anything negative about it.
So guess what avenue was left? Only one. In order to close this gaping hole, only one thing would suffice: going public with the data. THAT makes people stand up and listen.
THE BANKS are the criminals here, and the press are in bed with them. If you think differently, you are deluding yourself.
And the release of data is the only way they (and a lot of people, like you) will even pay attention.
So take your criticism and stuff it. I have been there. These people did the right thing.
I find it very amusing that here on Slashdot, a few days after a paper claiming that such melts are actually not unusual, along comes another paper that is "gloom and doom". And yet, many people seem to be irrationally attached to the gloom-and-doom scenario, and have largely ignored the former, even though it was published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal, and the reviewers found nothing wrong with it.
HAH! Mod up. Definitely deserving.
And I know even more people -- arguably a majority today -- who are equally ignorant and have taken the opposite stance.
Were you trying to make a point of some kind?
"I would consider the repeal of Glass-Steagall to be a massive de-regulation, hence my comments on the 2000's being less regulated. There may have been more regulations numerically, but they had less reach and power."
Yes, agreed once again. Terminology. If you consider the volume and depth of regulation, banks and Wall Street were never more regulated before 2008. It was the quality of that regulation that was... well... "insufficient" doesn't really do it justice. I would lean more toward "criminal".
Pardon me; I was not paying enough attention to what I was writing.
It's a bit of chained concept, but: greed implies exploitation; exploitation implies coercion.
Granted they are only connotations. Implications. But still they imply concepts that are not really part of a capitalist market.
"There are those who for some reason believe even those are unwarranted interference and that the market will somehow work it out."
Yes, agreed, again maybe a minor matter of misunderstood context.
My issue is with the word "greed". It implies exploitation. Which is not a part of capitalist theory.
"I had the wrong impression."
"This though is one of the key indicators that free market capitalism will never work. You, and everyone else, is to stupid to be considered part of a well informed poplulace.
Good game."
I can honestly say that in all my years on Slashdot, this is the single most incoherent piece of shit I have yet read.
Well played.