The problem is that you don't appear to truly understand what it means to be "progressive". This type of behavior is the way "progressives" always behave. Check your history, Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive", he helped AT&T start the process of securing its monopoly over telephone service. Then FDR, another "progressive", consolidated monopoly status for AT&T with the Telecommunications Act of 1934. "Progressives" have always preferred having only a few companies dominating an industry to having a lot of companies competing, it's easier for the government to control an industry if there are only a few companies involved. It was under a Republican President that the lawsuit that broke up AT&T was started and it was under another Republican President that the settlement agreement was reached.
I find it amazing that people continually expect Republicans to exhibit behaviors that have historically been Democratic and are surprised when Democrats behave in the manner that they historically always have. Republicans favor business in the abstract, Democrats favor specific companies.
No, social responsibility starts with the individual. If individuals behave irresponsibly, no amount of holding others accountable for their actions will make things better. Your approach is exactly why things have gotten progressively worse. By holding Pepsico responsible for the bad decisions that some people make when they buy and consume Pepsico products, you tell those people that they don't need to suffer the consequences of behaving irresponsibly.
So, it's ok when people who have unknown biases write a science blog, but not when people who explicitly declare their biases (or at least some of them) do. How is the explicitly labeled Pepsico scientists blog posts any worse than the blog posts from writers with unknown affiliations? In either case the blog post is just as likely to be picked up and cited as fact. To me it seems that it would be much easier to judge the validity of the science on a blog that is explicitly by scientists working for Pepsico than on a blog by somebody who all I know about them is what is posted on the blog. With this Pepsico section of this blog, I would have known that the people posting there worked for Pepsico, to find out the biases of those posting on the rest of the blog I have to go to some other part of the blog ("about so and so" or some other author's biography section of the blog) to discover potential conflicts of interest.
If ZFS doesn't do it the way that NetApp patented it, even if it does exactly the same thing, it is not a violation of the patent. This example will be an oversimplification but it illustrates the way patents should work (and used to work). If person A patents a system for building brick walls where you pick up a brick and apply mortar to it and then place the brick in place and then repeat with another brick, person B is not violating person A's patent if they place mortar on the surface then place a brick on the mortar and then repeat with another brick. When they are done, person B's brick wall may look exactly like person A's brick wall, but it did not violate person A's patent (for those of you who know something about masonry, I am well aware that this example is very oversimplified and would not work quite as described).
You do not understand capitalism. In capitalism, each individual decides the value of goods and services and whether or not they will use their resources to obtain a particular set of goods and services based on what value others place on those goods and services. For example, If I desire X and value it at $100 and you can supply X, but value it at $200, I will not obtain X (at least not from you). If on the other hand, I desire Y and value it at $500 and you possess Y, but only value it at $200 I will obtain it. Additionally, it is possible that I will pay $350. In this latter case we both make out. I got Y for $150 less than I valued it for and you sold it for $150 more than you valued it for.
On the other hand in both fascism and communism, the value of goods and services is determined by the group (in theory, in practice this ends up being the government). For example, If I desire Y and value it at $500 and you can provide Y and value it at $200, but the government values it at $100, I cannot obtain Y from you (at least not legally).
Socialism lets each individual decide the value of goods and services unless the group determines that they are important, then the group (the government) pays the difference between what providers of a good or service value it at and what consumers of that good or service value it at. In the long run this a completely unsustainable model.
Much as I hate these patent cases, perhaps this one has merit. NetApp built it's bussiness being a vendor of NAS systems that had extensible file systems that spanned clever raid structures, and automatic snapshoting and they did this long before ZFS. Those are the key features of ZFS. And when you pair that with NAS, well that's a NetApp in a box. I dont know what NetApps patents claim but what they did was not obvious at the time and they are actively a seller of that, not a patent troll.
Sorry, either ZFS violates their patents in all of its uses, or they have no claim. If I build a machine that makes widgets and patent it, then you build a machine that builds widgets using a completely different technique, my patent does not apply to your machine. This sums up a large part of the problem with software patents, it is very hard to see whether a piece of software reaches the same results as another piece of software using different methods or not.
The correct name for the Communist Party of China would be the Fascist Party of China. It is only a minor change, but it is easier for fascists to pretend to be capitalists than for communists (communists pretend that "the people" control the means of production while government officials really do, fascists pretend that "industrialists" control the means of production while the same government officials acutally do).
They have an even larger problem relative to their large workforce. It is aging without a replacement cadre following it. The Chinese "Baby Boomers" are slightly younger than those of the West (since it didn't really start until after the Revolution was complete in about 1949), but they are followed by a relatively even smaller replacement generation. This problem is compounded by the fact that because of the "one child" policy their workforce is disproportionately male.
I read about another study that showed that children who live in spotlessly clean homes are more prone to allergies and athsma than kids whose moms are slobs.
Actually you are slightly misremembering that study. That study found that a cleaner house was healthier up to a point, after which the benefits were reversed. The authors of the study speculated that this result had to do with residue that resulted from having pets (hair, bits of dried skin, etc). I have never seen a report on a follow up study that determined if they were correct.
For most works, your copyright term is longer than that proposed by the poster you replied to. Personally, I think that something around 20-30 years makes good sense. However, something that has been proposed on here from time to time looks to me like something that could get passed and would work almost as well (unfortunately, I don't think a truly time limited copyright could be passed into law anytime in the near future). The idea is that initially copyright would have a limited term (7, 14, 28 years, or something less than 30). At the end of that time the copyright holder would have the option of extending the copyright for a limited time (I favor an additional 7 years) for a fee. Every time the copyright reached its expiration, the copyright holder could buy an extension but the fee would rise by at least a factor of 10. This would allow companies that are built on exploiting the value of certain copyright works to continue to hold the copyright for as long as it is economically feasible but force them to release the copyright on things that they are no longer making money from. Once a copyright was allowed to expire, that's it, the work in question is public domain for all time.
I suspect that we would see a significant diminishment in the value of works staying under copyright in this type of system because secondary works that were allowed to enter the public domain because they wee not popular enough to pay the copyright renewal fees would eclipse the big hits after the secondary works entered the public domain.
Actually, "Happy Birthday" is probably not under copyright, but Warner Chappell (the company that claims to own the copyright) is ready to sue people for infringement and nobody has been willing to spend the money for the court fight. The basis for Warner Chappell's claim is a song book published in 1935. The problem with that claim is that the song has been documented as being published in 1918. Additionally, there is question as to whether the song was an original work to begin with. However, the song is still a prime example of what is wrong with current copyright law.
Even so the concept would work by creating "prior art". By using a computer to generate every possible melody and publishing them, no one could claim to be the original "writer" of the tune.
Considering that the economic stimulus didn't. That all the health care reform bill did was give the federal government greater control over what kind of health care you can receive without addressing any of the underlying problems. And the finance reform bill imposed an increased regulatory burden on institutions with little impact on the finance meltdown while leaving two institutions with a major role in the meltdown (FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC) virtually untouched. I would say they look like bills passed to increase government control with titles that make them seem like they are well intended.
I'm sorry, I thought I was quite clear that I believe that the programs that Democrats want to implement have goals. The goals are to increase dependence on the federal government and the size and power of the federal government.
See, that is because you don't understand the parties. The Republicans have programs they want to implement (not necessarily good programs). Democrats don't care what the government does as long as it gets bigger. Actually that's not quite true, Democrats tend to favor programs that in addition to growing the government foster dependence on the government and oppose any programs that might encourage people to increase their ability to get along without the government.
Obama is not a "wishy-washy Democrat". He has accomplished exactly what he set out to do. He has expanded the size and scope of the Federal government and given it greater power over the lives of its subjects.
If you are a driver pulled over by the police, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally. Actually, in any case under this law, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally.
My example was for a person riding in a car, as opposed to driving the car.
Basically, you are saying that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because Arizona law enforcement officers are bigots.
Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question. Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally. So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law ( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).
You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.
Actually you have hit the problem with current markets on the head, most people (especially at the big financial companies) are gambling. Stock investing is always a gamble, but it has become more so lately (the problem I am talking about really started becoming a major factor in the 80s). Ideally if you invest in a company you should be expecting to get a share of the profits through dividends. Today most people are expecting to profit by selling the stocks for more than they paid for them even though they never get a cut of the profits (Apple for example). Unless you are buying enough stock so that you can affect the composition of the Board of Directors, most of the time you shouldn't buy stocks in a company that doesn't pay a dividend.
If they are not allowed to act on it, they are not allowed to believe it, only to think it. You say that you are not a relativist and that may be true. But you also claim that one should be tolerant of others beliefs as long as they are tolerant and do not try and convince others of their beliefs. That means that you are only "tolerant" of those who share your core belief.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you don't appear to truly understand what it means to be "progressive". This type of behavior is the way "progressives" always behave. Check your history, Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive", he helped AT&T start the process of securing its monopoly over telephone service. Then FDR, another "progressive", consolidated monopoly status for AT&T with the Telecommunications Act of 1934. "Progressives" have always preferred having only a few companies dominating an industry to having a lot of companies competing, it's easier for the government to control an industry if there are only a few companies involved. It was under a Republican President that the lawsuit that broke up AT&T was started and it was under another Republican President that the settlement agreement was reached.
I find it amazing that people continually expect Republicans to exhibit behaviors that have historically been Democratic and are surprised when Democrats behave in the manner that they historically always have. Republicans favor business in the abstract, Democrats favor specific companies.
No, social responsibility starts with the individual. If individuals behave irresponsibly, no amount of holding others accountable for their actions will make things better. Your approach is exactly why things have gotten progressively worse. By holding Pepsico responsible for the bad decisions that some people make when they buy and consume Pepsico products, you tell those people that they don't need to suffer the consequences of behaving irresponsibly.
So, it's ok when people who have unknown biases write a science blog, but not when people who explicitly declare their biases (or at least some of them) do. How is the explicitly labeled Pepsico scientists blog posts any worse than the blog posts from writers with unknown affiliations? In either case the blog post is just as likely to be picked up and cited as fact. To me it seems that it would be much easier to judge the validity of the science on a blog that is explicitly by scientists working for Pepsico than on a blog by somebody who all I know about them is what is posted on the blog. With this Pepsico section of this blog, I would have known that the people posting there worked for Pepsico, to find out the biases of those posting on the rest of the blog I have to go to some other part of the blog ("about so and so" or some other author's biography section of the blog) to discover potential conflicts of interest.
If ZFS doesn't do it the way that NetApp patented it, even if it does exactly the same thing, it is not a violation of the patent. This example will be an oversimplification but it illustrates the way patents should work (and used to work). If person A patents a system for building brick walls where you pick up a brick and apply mortar to it and then place the brick in place and then repeat with another brick, person B is not violating person A's patent if they place mortar on the surface then place a brick on the mortar and then repeat with another brick. When they are done, person B's brick wall may look exactly like person A's brick wall, but it did not violate person A's patent (for those of you who know something about masonry, I am well aware that this example is very oversimplified and would not work quite as described).
You do not understand capitalism. In capitalism, each individual decides the value of goods and services and whether or not they will use their resources to obtain a particular set of goods and services based on what value others place on those goods and services. For example, If I desire X and value it at $100 and you can supply X, but value it at $200, I will not obtain X (at least not from you). If on the other hand, I desire Y and value it at $500 and you possess Y, but only value it at $200 I will obtain it. Additionally, it is possible that I will pay $350. In this latter case we both make out. I got Y for $150 less than I valued it for and you sold it for $150 more than you valued it for.
On the other hand in both fascism and communism, the value of goods and services is determined by the group (in theory, in practice this ends up being the government). For example, If I desire Y and value it at $500 and you can provide Y and value it at $200, but the government values it at $100, I cannot obtain Y from you (at least not legally).
Socialism lets each individual decide the value of goods and services unless the group determines that they are important, then the group (the government) pays the difference between what providers of a good or service value it at and what consumers of that good or service value it at. In the long run this a completely unsustainable model.
Much as I hate these patent cases, perhaps this one has merit. NetApp built it's bussiness being a vendor of NAS systems that had extensible file systems that spanned clever raid structures, and automatic snapshoting and they did this long before ZFS. Those are the key features of ZFS. And when you pair that with NAS, well that's a NetApp in a box. I dont know what NetApps patents claim but what they did was not obvious at the time and they are actively a seller of that, not a patent troll.
Sorry, either ZFS violates their patents in all of its uses, or they have no claim. If I build a machine that makes widgets and patent it, then you build a machine that builds widgets using a completely different technique, my patent does not apply to your machine. This sums up a large part of the problem with software patents, it is very hard to see whether a piece of software reaches the same results as another piece of software using different methods or not.
The correct name for the Communist Party of China would be the Fascist Party of China. It is only a minor change, but it is easier for fascists to pretend to be capitalists than for communists (communists pretend that "the people" control the means of production while government officials really do, fascists pretend that "industrialists" control the means of production while the same government officials acutally do).
Actually, the SAT is a very good predicter of how well a student will do in college (not sure about the ACT). http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/10/by_peter_salins_one_of.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98373&page=2 http://collegeapps.about.com/b/2009/09/19/the-sats-ability-to-predict-college-success-revisited.htm I actually wasn't sure if it still held true, but every study I have ever heard of that compares either first year grades within the same school or college graduation rates has shown that a higher SAT score correlates with higher grades and a higher graduation rate.
They have an even larger problem relative to their large workforce. It is aging without a replacement cadre following it. The Chinese "Baby Boomers" are slightly younger than those of the West (since it didn't really start until after the Revolution was complete in about 1949), but they are followed by a relatively even smaller replacement generation. This problem is compounded by the fact that because of the "one child" policy their workforce is disproportionately male.
The problem with your theory is that the corporations and the trial lawyers are all Democrats (check out who they give political donations to).
The ads I saw all said that the cable box already did digital to analog conversion, not that cable was going to keep the analog signal.
I read about another study that showed that children who live in spotlessly clean homes are more prone to allergies and athsma than kids whose moms are slobs.
Actually you are slightly misremembering that study. That study found that a cleaner house was healthier up to a point, after which the benefits were reversed. The authors of the study speculated that this result had to do with residue that resulted from having pets (hair, bits of dried skin, etc). I have never seen a report on a follow up study that determined if they were correct.
For most works, your copyright term is longer than that proposed by the poster you replied to. Personally, I think that something around 20-30 years makes good sense. However, something that has been proposed on here from time to time looks to me like something that could get passed and would work almost as well (unfortunately, I don't think a truly time limited copyright could be passed into law anytime in the near future). The idea is that initially copyright would have a limited term (7, 14, 28 years, or something less than 30). At the end of that time the copyright holder would have the option of extending the copyright for a limited time (I favor an additional 7 years) for a fee. Every time the copyright reached its expiration, the copyright holder could buy an extension but the fee would rise by at least a factor of 10. This would allow companies that are built on exploiting the value of certain copyright works to continue to hold the copyright for as long as it is economically feasible but force them to release the copyright on things that they are no longer making money from. Once a copyright was allowed to expire, that's it, the work in question is public domain for all time.
I suspect that we would see a significant diminishment in the value of works staying under copyright in this type of system because secondary works that were allowed to enter the public domain because they wee not popular enough to pay the copyright renewal fees would eclipse the big hits after the secondary works entered the public domain.
Actually, "Happy Birthday" is probably not under copyright, but Warner Chappell (the company that claims to own the copyright) is ready to sue people for infringement and nobody has been willing to spend the money for the court fight. The basis for Warner Chappell's claim is a song book published in 1935. The problem with that claim is that the song has been documented as being published in 1918. Additionally, there is question as to whether the song was an original work to begin with. However, the song is still a prime example of what is wrong with current copyright law.
Even so the concept would work by creating "prior art". By using a computer to generate every possible melody and publishing them, no one could claim to be the original "writer" of the tune.
Considering that the economic stimulus didn't. That all the health care reform bill did was give the federal government greater control over what kind of health care you can receive without addressing any of the underlying problems. And the finance reform bill imposed an increased regulatory burden on institutions with little impact on the finance meltdown while leaving two institutions with a major role in the meltdown (FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC) virtually untouched. I would say they look like bills passed to increase government control with titles that make them seem like they are well intended.
I'm sorry, I thought I was quite clear that I believe that the programs that Democrats want to implement have goals. The goals are to increase dependence on the federal government and the size and power of the federal government.
See, that is because you don't understand the parties. The Republicans have programs they want to implement (not necessarily good programs). Democrats don't care what the government does as long as it gets bigger. Actually that's not quite true, Democrats tend to favor programs that in addition to growing the government foster dependence on the government and oppose any programs that might encourage people to increase their ability to get along without the government.
If you can't get over this hurdle, then your chances of doing original and rigorous work in your chosen field don't look that good.
Oh come on, he's an aspiring social "scientist", his chances of doing rigorous work don't look all that good to begin with.
Obama is not a "wishy-washy Democrat". He has accomplished exactly what he set out to do. He has expanded the size and scope of the Federal government and given it greater power over the lives of its subjects.
Your option 3 is the same as the OP's option 2.
If you are a driver pulled over by the police, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally. Actually, in any case under this law, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally.
My example was for a person riding in a car, as opposed to driving the car.
Basically, you are saying that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because Arizona law enforcement officers are bigots.
Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question. Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally. So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law ( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).
You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.
Actually you have hit the problem with current markets on the head, most people (especially at the big financial companies) are gambling. Stock investing is always a gamble, but it has become more so lately (the problem I am talking about really started becoming a major factor in the 80s). Ideally if you invest in a company you should be expecting to get a share of the profits through dividends. Today most people are expecting to profit by selling the stocks for more than they paid for them even though they never get a cut of the profits (Apple for example). Unless you are buying enough stock so that you can affect the composition of the Board of Directors, most of the time you shouldn't buy stocks in a company that doesn't pay a dividend.
If they are not allowed to act on it, they are not allowed to believe it, only to think it. You say that you are not a relativist and that may be true. But you also claim that one should be tolerant of others beliefs as long as they are tolerant and do not try and convince others of their beliefs. That means that you are only "tolerant" of those who share your core belief.