There's just no way that could work. How about if 90% of people picked Ralph Nader as their 2nd choice, and only 40% of people chose Kerry as their first choice. Assuming a "second-choice" vote counts half as much, should Nader (or anyone else) become the president, when nobody really wanted him?
First of all, when using the instant runoff method of voting, that wouldn't be an issue. Just because Nader had 90% of number 2 votes doesn't mean he would win.
The problem with our election system is that no 3rd party has stepped into the forefront. Nader just won't be elected because there is no money behind him, and there won't be without a strong party.
The need for vast sums of money in order to be a contender is one of the problems with our system, not a virtue. It promotes corruption and anything we can do to lessen the impact of money on an election would be a good thing. It would let people vote their conscience without fear of "throwing away" their vote. We wouldn't have to deal with the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" garbage. The system would more accurately reflect the wishes of the people. It also promotes moderate candidates rather than extremes.
And if you are worried about Nader taking votes away from Kerry, you should go out and form some ultra-conservative and business-friendly 3rd party that would take votes away from Republicans. That would keep things fair... If Buchannan wasn't so far out there, he would have changed the results in 2000.
I hardly see how attempts to game the system can be said to "keep things fair". How about fixing the system so that such deceptions wouldn't be effective?
It's a huge change, and in the long run I would predict it would chill innovation in the US, lead to more draconian NDAs & Non-Compete agreements, aid the big guys in consoladating IP to be used against the market more than each other, encourage more secrecy, less patenting, more espionage, and possibly give rise to a preference to patent inventions in other countries. If I had played a lot more Elevator Action, I might see this as a positive development.
Well, the way things are now, if you're not a big corp, you can't afford to innovate in many areas. You have nothing to bargain with (no patent portfolio to cross-license), so the big boys can simply trample you with lawsuits if you seem like even a minor threat to them. There are such a huge number of vague, broad, and obvious patents that they can probably find a million and one things that are somewhat similar to some aspect of your invention or process. So yeah, maybe your scenario actually would be an improvement. But then again, I played a lot of Elevator Action, so that may have warped my view:)
If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it, since they're so skilled they can claim worthy patents when there is significant pressure to claim everything thing concievable at the time of the filing?
Perhaps they didn't patent it because it *was* obvious. The idea that every idea or hack or workaround or anything else that pops into someone's head should be patented is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you did something first that nobody else has done. Perhaps nobody else needed to do it. That doesn't make it patent-worthy. Hell, it's getting so that you can't do a damn thing without major financial backing just to try to figure out if you're violating someone, somewhere's, patent. Even if you're not, you'll still need the financial backing to fight off the inevitable lawsuits from all the vague and overbroad patent holders out there that are trying to hustle anyone that tries to create anything these days.
Umm... my post was a reply to yours. How exactly am I getting to them before they have a chance to read yours? This is getting pretty lame now... I'm done.
Heh. So only considering your post would be approaching the issue with an open mind? I'm pointing out what I know about the GPL and asked for reasoning behind your post. I don't see how that encourages close-mindedness.
Sure I would have. Not to convince you or myself really, because I doubt I'm going to change your mind, and I don't think you're going to change mine, especially since you aren't giving any possible reasoning for why you think it might happen. Mostly I was replying so that others that read your post will take it with a bit bigger grain of salt.
Well, if they didn't agree to the GPL to begin with, then they had no right whatsoever to distribute the software, so I don't see why they would be indemnified.
Maybe it's just me, but after watching the first 2 episodes of Firefly, I really didn't see what was so great about it. It was pretty formulaic. I really thought it would be better, but I just couldn't get into it. Does it get better after those 2 or what?
That's the main reason I don't usually buy used games. They generally aren't much cheaper than new ones, and it's usually easier to wait for a sale someplace like gogamer.com than to pay for a used game. That, and the fact that you're right about them giving squat for the games I try to trade in. It's just not worth it.
This is true. Due to network effects, consumers will still be be experiencing lock-in to Windows and Office, regardless of whether they are from the same company or not. The real remedies would be preventing them from strong-arming OEMs and requiring full API and file format documentation and disclosure in a timely manner.
And is it moral to destroy a company simply because you can't move faster than the marketplace for its products? And if the marketplace moves so quickly to make monopolies, might it not move equally quickly to destroy them?
After they've been warned several times, and convicted of monopolising markets, yes, I believe it is quite moral. It's the only way to regulate a company that defies the law as blatantly as Microsoft does. Consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's strong-arming of OEMs, monopolistic pricing schemes, and squelching of innovation by competitors. Combined with their complete lack of attempts to rectify their behavior, and even arrogant comments about how they don't plan to change their tactics at all, I think we have more than enough reason to cut them off at the knees.
It should be exchanged for old for free (or with huge rebate), or original owners would feel cheated.
Original owners are morons for buying it in the first place. They either have way too much expendable income and didn't bother to do their homework before making a purchase of this size, or they are just retarded enough to buy something with so many glaring problems. I think they deserve their fate.
Gotta agree here. Anonymous is the way to go. While he certainly has every right, and perhaps even an obligation to complain about the problem since it's his personal info that is at risk here, it's all too common for the messenger to be stabbed, hung, shot, and dragged through the street in situations like this.
How would that even begin to make any difference? Organizations would form to support candidates and spend money on their behalf for advertisements and the like (just like they do now). Or individuals would simply pay for ads themselves. No matter how you do things, the wealthy will always be able to afford to spread their message the farthest. You can't muzzle them without violating the first amendment.
Even UT2004. wtf is that? a bunch of laser's and hovercrafts, as gamers get older, they get tired of fake ass plasma rifles and elecro-shock guns. Not to mention graphics. WWII games will always look better, make more people's jaw drop, because they have something to compare the in-game images to, (as in; life) you don't know what a shock core looks like in real life. (and wtf is with the shock core, and all the other fake weapons that suck? if your going to make a up an imaginary weapon, don't make it suck, I hate ut2003/4's weapon set.) Call of duty has a real dirty, blown up feel to it. I loved it.
Ok, counterpoint. People get tired of reality and realistic games. UT is great because it doesn't have to try to be realistic. It lets you drive fun vehicles, do weird acrobatic things like wall-jumping, use all sorts of powerups, and run around in levels limited only by the imagination of the designers. There are tons of weapons available. Many of the weapons are great, including the shockrifle (which happens to be one of my favorite weapons). Nobody is expected to like all the weapons, but with such a large number of them, everyone should be able to find a few that they like. I thought Call of Duty was a lot of fun, but I like UT2K4 as well. They are different games that try to do very different things. Both succeed in my opinion.
You still don't grasp the meaning of the words "valid", "credible", or "plausible". Believing in something that has no evidence is the same as believing in flying pink space unicorns with lasers attached to their heads. You can believe it all you want, but it's never going to be credible.
Well, aside from the fact that I haven't argued that God does not exist, the burden of proof cannot rest with the attacking side because you can't prove a negative. It's impossible. So by positioning the argument in that way, it just demonstrates that the only way that your claims can hold up would be to put the other side in a position of doing the impossible. That's why the scientific method works the way it does. You must create a theory and predict something specific based on your theory. If it works, then great. Your theory holds up so far. If it doesn't, then you're wrong. Religions make all sorts of claims, but never provide any predictions that can be tested.
No it isn't. They don't try to defend it with anything. It's just something that they believe despite the fact that there is really no evidence for it. That isn't a defensible position. That's willful mass delusion.
Wrong. There are no special rules for defensibility just because you're talking about faith. Faith is faith because it lacks evidence. A defensible position has to have some sort of defense. Faith has no defenses. It has no evidence. Therefore it is not defensible. It is simply faith.
1. Strong; powerful; efficient. [Obs.] ``Perhaps more valid arms . . . may serve to better us.'' --Milton.
2. Having sufficient strength or force; founded in truth; capable of being justified, defended, or supported; not weak or defective; sound; good; efficacious; as, a valid argument; a valid objection. An answer that is open to no valid exception. --I. Taylor.
3. (Law) Having legal strength or force; executed with the proper formalities; incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside; as, a valid deed; a valid covenant; a valid instrument of any kind; a valid claim or title; a valid marriage.
So, apparently Christians are simply deluded since they have no evidence with which to defend their faith (note that it's called faith precisely because there is no real evidence). Just because they believe it, doesn't make it credible or valid. You're putting the cart before the horse.
1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.
2. Worthy of confidence; reliable.
plausible (plôz-bl) adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
Ok, given those definitions, I think that we agree that you can believe in the existence or non-existence of God. However, neither belief qualifies under the second definition, nor do they fit the definition of plausible since there is absolutely no way to verify them and there is little to no evidence to support those beliefs.
Not absolute proof, but at least strong evidence. Believers and disbelievers alike have neither. That is why their beliefs fall naturally under the category of "incredible beliefs".
Yep, it's a belief. You can believe things that are true and things that aren't true. You can believe things that we have no idea whether they are true or not. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it makes sense or that it's real or that it should be taken even remotely serious by anyone else. Back to the original point now. Believing that God exists is not a credible position because there is no evidence of it. There is some evidence that believing in a benevolent force or being of some kind can sometimes have some sort of positive effect on someone. That's not the same thing as evidence for the existence of that force or being. There is also no evidence that God (or the equivalent) does not exist. Therefore adhering to the belief that God does not exist lacks credibility in the same way. So, that leaves us with the position of agnosticism as the remaining path. One that acknowledges that we have no idea whether God really exists or not, and while you may get some benefit from either belieiving or not believing, neither position is logically defensible. So you believe because it suits you to believe. Now if only religious people had always accepted this point, perhaps we wouldn't have had to deal with thousands of years of violence.
Slashdot Mirror
How the bloody hell would reading a book be less dangerous than talking on a cell phone? You don't have to be looking at the phone to use it.
There's just no way that could work. How about if 90% of people picked Ralph Nader as their 2nd choice, and only 40% of people chose Kerry as their first choice. Assuming a "second-choice" vote counts half as much, should Nader (or anyone else) become the president, when nobody really wanted him?
First of all, when using the instant runoff method of voting, that wouldn't be an issue. Just because Nader had 90% of number 2 votes doesn't mean he would win.
The problem with our election system is that no 3rd party has stepped into the forefront. Nader just won't be elected because there is no money behind him, and there won't be without a strong party.
The need for vast sums of money in order to be a contender is one of the problems with our system, not a virtue. It promotes corruption and anything we can do to lessen the impact of money on an election would be a good thing. It would let people vote their conscience without fear of "throwing away" their vote. We wouldn't have to deal with the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" garbage. The system would more accurately reflect the wishes of the people. It also promotes moderate candidates rather than extremes.
And if you are worried about Nader taking votes away from Kerry, you should go out and form some ultra-conservative and business-friendly 3rd party that would take votes away from Republicans. That would keep things fair... If Buchannan wasn't so far out there, he would have changed the results in 2000.
I hardly see how attempts to game the system can be said to "keep things fair". How about fixing the system so that such deceptions wouldn't be effective?
It's a huge change, and in the long run I would predict it would chill innovation in the US, lead to more draconian NDAs & Non-Compete agreements, aid the big guys in consoladating IP to be used against the market more than each other, encourage more secrecy, less patenting, more espionage, and possibly give rise to a preference to patent inventions in other countries. If I had played a lot more Elevator Action, I might see this as a positive development.
:)
Well, the way things are now, if you're not a big corp, you can't afford to innovate in many areas. You have nothing to bargain with (no patent portfolio to cross-license), so the big boys can simply trample you with lawsuits if you seem like even a minor threat to them. There are such a huge number of vague, broad, and obvious patents that they can probably find a million and one things that are somewhat similar to some aspect of your invention or process. So yeah, maybe your scenario actually would be an improvement. But then again, I played a lot of Elevator Action, so that may have warped my view
If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it, since they're so skilled they can claim worthy patents when there is significant pressure to claim everything thing concievable at the time of the filing?
Perhaps they didn't patent it because it *was* obvious. The idea that every idea or hack or workaround or anything else that pops into someone's head should be patented is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you did something first that nobody else has done. Perhaps nobody else needed to do it. That doesn't make it patent-worthy. Hell, it's getting so that you can't do a damn thing without major financial backing just to try to figure out if you're violating someone, somewhere's, patent. Even if you're not, you'll still need the financial backing to fight off the inevitable lawsuits from all the vague and overbroad patent holders out there that are trying to hustle anyone that tries to create anything these days.
Umm... my post was a reply to yours. How exactly am I getting to them before they have a chance to read yours? This is getting pretty lame now... I'm done.
Heh. So only considering your post would be approaching the issue with an open mind? I'm pointing out what I know about the GPL and asked for reasoning behind your post. I don't see how that encourages close-mindedness.
Sure I would have. Not to convince you or myself really, because I doubt I'm going to change your mind, and I don't think you're going to change mine, especially since you aren't giving any possible reasoning for why you think it might happen. Mostly I was replying so that others that read your post will take it with a bit bigger grain of salt.
Well, if they didn't agree to the GPL to begin with, then they had no right whatsoever to distribute the software, so I don't see why they would be indemnified.
Maybe it's just me, but after watching the first 2 episodes of Firefly, I really didn't see what was so great about it. It was pretty formulaic. I really thought it would be better, but I just couldn't get into it. Does it get better after those 2 or what?
That's the main reason I don't usually buy used games. They generally aren't much cheaper than new ones, and it's usually easier to wait for a sale someplace like gogamer.com than to pay for a used game. That, and the fact that you're right about them giving squat for the games I try to trade in. It's just not worth it.
Kind of like some of the old metasearch engines that would feed your query to half a dozen search engines and combine the results for you.
This is true. Due to network effects, consumers will still be be experiencing lock-in to Windows and Office, regardless of whether they are from the same company or not. The real remedies would be preventing them from strong-arming OEMs and requiring full API and file format documentation and disclosure in a timely manner.
And is it moral to destroy a company simply because you can't move faster than the marketplace for its products? And if the marketplace moves so quickly to make monopolies, might it not move equally quickly to destroy them?
After they've been warned several times, and convicted of monopolising markets, yes, I believe it is quite moral. It's the only way to regulate a company that defies the law as blatantly as Microsoft does. Consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's strong-arming of OEMs, monopolistic pricing schemes, and squelching of innovation by competitors. Combined with their complete lack of attempts to rectify their behavior, and even arrogant comments about how they don't plan to change their tactics at all, I think we have more than enough reason to cut them off at the knees.
It should be exchanged for old for free (or with huge rebate), or original owners would feel cheated.
Original owners are morons for buying it in the first place. They either have way too much expendable income and didn't bother to do their homework before making a purchase of this size, or they are just retarded enough to buy something with so many glaring problems. I think they deserve their fate.
Gotta agree here. Anonymous is the way to go. While he certainly has every right, and perhaps even an obligation to complain about the problem since it's his personal info that is at risk here, it's all too common for the messenger to be stabbed, hung, shot, and dragged through the street in situations like this.
How would that even begin to make any difference? Organizations would form to support candidates and spend money on their behalf for advertisements and the like (just like they do now). Or individuals would simply pay for ads themselves. No matter how you do things, the wealthy will always be able to afford to spread their message the farthest. You can't muzzle them without violating the first amendment.
Even UT2004. wtf is that? a bunch of laser's and hovercrafts, as gamers get older, they get tired of fake ass plasma rifles and elecro-shock guns. Not to mention graphics. WWII games will always look better, make more people's jaw drop, because they have something to compare the in-game images to, (as in; life) you don't know what a shock core looks like in real life. (and wtf is with the shock core, and all the other fake weapons that suck? if your going to make a up an imaginary weapon, don't make it suck, I hate ut2003/4's weapon set.) Call of duty has a real dirty, blown up feel to it. I loved it.
Ok, counterpoint. People get tired of reality and realistic games. UT is great because it doesn't have to try to be realistic. It lets you drive fun vehicles, do weird acrobatic things like wall-jumping, use all sorts of powerups, and run around in levels limited only by the imagination of the designers. There are tons of weapons available. Many of the weapons are great, including the shockrifle (which happens to be one of my favorite weapons). Nobody is expected to like all the weapons, but with such a large number of them, everyone should be able to find a few that they like. I thought Call of Duty was a lot of fun, but I like UT2K4 as well. They are different games that try to do very different things. Both succeed in my opinion.
You still don't grasp the meaning of the words "valid", "credible", or "plausible". Believing in something that has no evidence is the same as believing in flying pink space unicorns with lasers attached to their heads. You can believe it all you want, but it's never going to be credible.
Well, aside from the fact that I haven't argued that God does not exist, the burden of proof cannot rest with the attacking side because you can't prove a negative. It's impossible. So by positioning the argument in that way, it just demonstrates that the only way that your claims can hold up would be to put the other side in a position of doing the impossible. That's why the scientific method works the way it does. You must create a theory and predict something specific based on your theory. If it works, then great. Your theory holds up so far. If it doesn't, then you're wrong. Religions make all sorts of claims, but never provide any predictions that can be tested.
No it isn't. They don't try to defend it with anything. It's just something that they believe despite the fact that there is really no evidence for it. That isn't a defensible position. That's willful mass delusion.
Wrong. There are no special rules for defensibility just because you're talking about faith. Faith is faith because it lacks evidence. A defensible position has to have some sort of defense. Faith has no defenses. It has no evidence. Therefore it is not defensible. It is simply faith.
valid \Val"id\, a.
1. Strong; powerful; efficient. [Obs.] ``Perhaps more valid arms . . . may serve to better us.'' --Milton.
2. Having sufficient strength or force; founded in truth; capable of being justified, defended, or supported; not weak or defective; sound; good; efficacious; as, a valid argument; a valid objection. An answer that is open to no valid exception. --I. Taylor.
3. (Law) Having legal strength or force; executed with the proper formalities; incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside; as, a valid deed; a valid covenant; a valid instrument of any kind; a valid claim or title; a valid marriage.
So, apparently Christians are simply deluded since they have no evidence with which to defend their faith (note that it's called faith precisely because there is no real evidence). Just because they believe it, doesn't make it credible or valid. You're putting the cart before the horse.
credible (krd-bl) adj.
1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.
2. Worthy of confidence; reliable.
plausible (plôz-bl) adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
Ok, given those definitions, I think that we agree that you can believe in the existence or non-existence of God. However, neither belief qualifies under the second definition, nor do they fit the definition of plausible since there is absolutely no way to verify them and there is little to no evidence to support those beliefs.
Not absolute proof, but at least strong evidence. Believers and disbelievers alike have neither. That is why their beliefs fall naturally under the category of "incredible beliefs".
Yep, it's a belief. You can believe things that are true and things that aren't true. You can believe things that we have no idea whether they are true or not. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it makes sense or that it's real or that it should be taken even remotely serious by anyone else. Back to the original point now. Believing that God exists is not a credible position because there is no evidence of it. There is some evidence that believing in a benevolent force or being of some kind can sometimes have some sort of positive effect on someone. That's not the same thing as evidence for the existence of that force or being. There is also no evidence that God (or the equivalent) does not exist. Therefore adhering to the belief that God does not exist lacks credibility in the same way. So, that leaves us with the position of agnosticism as the remaining path. One that acknowledges that we have no idea whether God really exists or not, and while you may get some benefit from either belieiving or not believing, neither position is logically defensible. So you believe because it suits you to believe. Now if only religious people had always accepted this point, perhaps we wouldn't have had to deal with thousands of years of violence.