Before I was married, I did that a couple of times. Then I realized that the purpose of a date was to interact with the woman I was with. Movie theaters are very bad venues for interacting with a woman. If you talk to her everyone else considers you rude (and she may as well). The seats are designed so that it is very hard to snuggle (or do any more intimate physical interaction).
I discovered there are many better options to take a woman for a date. They are frequently less expensive and, as a bonus, most women think you are so smart, romantic and original for coming up with them.
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
Patents weren't intended to protect against duplicating functionality, they were intended to prevent outright copying of design. If person A has a patent on a machine to make widgets, person B can still build machines to make widgets, it just has to do it differently than the way described in person A's patent (unless person B licenses that technology from person A).
No, I didn't read the article linked to in the article linked to in the slashdot summary. The article linked to in the summary says that the comments that were "deeply disturbing" were not specifically described in the article. I saw no reason to look further. Obviously, the poster of this article linked to the wrong article, since the linked article does as bad a job of summarizing the original article as slashdot summaries often do.
What if what the commenter gains is political power? Not all gains are monetary, just as not all losses are monetary. What if this comment puts the commenter in a position to pressure the Mom to vote his/her way on some political matter? Maybe the Mom has reason to believe that the comment was made by someone who has been harassing her or her child? Maybe someone had threatened her family if she took a certain action in her official capacity and this looks like a follow up to that threat?
Quite simply, we don't know enough to decide if this was an improper order by the judge. The bar for this order being appropriate is pretty high, but all of the things that we would need to know in order to determine whether it reached that height are unknown to us.
There are two things to be considered here. First, we don't know what the comment was, so we cannot accurately judge whether it goes over the line and requires the poster be revealed. Second, depending on what the comment actually was, it is possible that whether or not there is anything to be gained by suing for damages depends on who made the comment in the first place (for example, if the comment was made by someone who would gain by influencing the Mom's behavior out of fear for her child it would be significantly different than some random stranger just going off on a rant).
an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.
Great. This argument boils down to "Someone who we were told was wrong turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is wrong (and by extension everyone who we are told is wrong) must also be right." I have no idea whether or not these whistleblowers are correct or not, but this "argument" by analogy is worse than useless, because it encourages fuzzy thinking.
Except I can't remember any economists who were demonized for pointing out problems with the economy in 2007. I can remember lots of news articles about economists talking about how bad things were.
My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.
Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Please explain how having worked a mere two years as a corporate lawyer in the 1970's indicates that he is in the tank for them? Or do you have some other evidence that he is in the tank for them?
Person A runs a tavern. Person B (after a few beers) drives his car into that of Person A. Person B pays $150 to Person C to fix the scratches on Person A's car. Person C uses his $150 income at Person A's tavern.
Who profited by the exchange of $150? Are all three people better off?
The problem that you are referring to is what is called the "Broken Window Fallacy". The problem with your example is that it Person B did not receive anything in this economic exchange, except for "forgiveness" for damaging Person C's car. Person B and Person C would have been better off if Person B had never run into Person C's car.
Your other analogy involving increased water prices is based on only one person drinking at Person A's bar, if instead of just one person drinks at person A's bar, 1,001 (or more) people each year drink at person A's bar, then value is increased (you are estimating that water prices increase by approximately 1% for 100,000 people, if greater than 1% of those 100,000 get value from the bar, than there is a greater than 1% increase in wealth to pay for that 1% increase in cost).
For that reason, spreading around existing software doesn't really create any new wealth using p2p since very little resources are expended. It just redistributes existing wealth. If you want to create new wealth with software you have to write new code. This takes labor.
Sorry, that just isn't true. If I acquire software that increases the efficiency with which I am able to produce something that has value, my wealth has increased. New wealth does not necessarily require expending resources. Anything that increases my productivity increases my wealth (even if the only thing that increases as a result is my free time).
I have seen no reference to any such provision in the just passed bill. If a bill such as what you had outlined had been proposed (instead of this monstrosity--any bill that is longer than "War & Peace" is a monstrosity) there would have been greater support for it than for this bill.
You and several other people have suggested things that would have been great ideas to discuss as individual laws. They are ideas that could have been implemented as stand alone laws, that then could have been eliminated or tweaked if they did not work as planned.
Nothing about public insurance prevents private operators - we don't want Canada's system after all - but there are real economic benefits to cutting people who do nothing but run interference against our own productivity out of the economy. Basic math: A rescission worker uses her own labor to interfere with the labor of both the doctor and the patient. Even ignoring the loss of efficiency due to ill laborers, and even assuming the doctor is not spending any time on hold (ha!), every unit of work you pay the person authorizing care interferes with a minimum of two people, for effectively no gain.
This ignores the moral problems involved in paying companies to deny care - denying a straight A surgical student preventative care for cancer, for example (a friend of mine). That only makes sense if you intend to restrict care to society.
Plenty of money available for health providers after we slaughter the hogs in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. There could easily be a 15% gain in efficiency and a 15% gain in efficiency turns America into a net exporter again.
So instead we will pay bureaucrats to deny care, how has this improved the situation? I am not sure how you see setting up a government bureaucracy will yield a net gain in efficiency.
After we slaughter the pharmaceutical industry, where do you propose getting new life saving drugs from?
If it is that easy, why do we need this almost 2000 page bill to fix healthcare?
I would support such a plan, I have not seen it proposed. I am not sure that such a plan would work, but the risks if it fails are fairly small, and the rewards disproportionately large, so it would be worth a try. The problem with the proposed healthcare legislation is that the risks if it fails (which I think probable) are huge and the rewards if it succeeds are minimal.
You didn't answer the question, how would you decide who gets lifesaving healthcare? If there is enough to go around, it won't be expensive.
So, since there isn't enough healthcare to go around, how will you decide who gets it?
Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to implement this? If Congress has the authority to do this, what keeps it from doing anything it chooses?
So, how would you decide who gets access to life saving procedures? A lottery?
Who do you suggest should pay the doctors, nurses, etc? How much should they be paid? Who decides how much they should be paid?
I recommend that the people receiving their services should pay them. The answer to how much they should be paid is how much those receiving those services are willing to pay.
The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215. Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total. It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.
The reason that deciding who gets healthcare on the basis of ability to pay is that what when demand for medical services goes up, the best way to get more providers of medical services is to increase what they get paid. Under this law, how will they increase the number of medical providers?
No, this system does not allow vote buying, it does not verify that your vote was counted the way you voted, only that your vote was counted. Of course that is part of the problem, how do I know that the system recorded my vote the way I entered it? Second, how does a non computer programmer know that the system actually does what is claimed? Finally, how does even a computer programmer know that the software that does this is actually installed on the voting machine he/she votes on (and not some software that mimics it).
It's funny that the media tried to make Ron Paul out to be some sort of radical fringe loon, but now that that the election is over, the media seems to love him.
Ron Paul is a radical fringe loon. Of course, he is no more so than Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Before I was married, I did that a couple of times. Then I realized that the purpose of a date was to interact with the woman I was with. Movie theaters are very bad venues for interacting with a woman. If you talk to her everyone else considers you rude (and she may as well). The seats are designed so that it is very hard to snuggle (or do any more intimate physical interaction).
I discovered there are many better options to take a woman for a date. They are frequently less expensive and, as a bonus, most women think you are so smart, romantic and original for coming up with them.
In my example the machine was the equivalent of software, not something to build software.
Person A's final product was machines that make widgets, not widgets. Somebody else makes widgets.
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
Patents weren't intended to protect against duplicating functionality, they were intended to prevent outright copying of design. If person A has a patent on a machine to make widgets, person B can still build machines to make widgets, it just has to do it differently than the way described in person A's patent (unless person B licenses that technology from person A).
Now, I might be nieve but why can't these memory aligning tricks be done in the kernel naively?
What does the fact that you might be a fist ( http://www.yourdictionary.com/nieve )have to do with doing something naive in the kernel?
No, I didn't read the article linked to in the article linked to in the slashdot summary. The article linked to in the summary says that the comments that were "deeply disturbing" were not specifically described in the article. I saw no reason to look further. Obviously, the poster of this article linked to the wrong article, since the linked article does as bad a job of summarizing the original article as slashdot summaries often do.
What if what the commenter gains is political power? Not all gains are monetary, just as not all losses are monetary. What if this comment puts the commenter in a position to pressure the Mom to vote his/her way on some political matter? Maybe the Mom has reason to believe that the comment was made by someone who has been harassing her or her child? Maybe someone had threatened her family if she took a certain action in her official capacity and this looks like a follow up to that threat?
Quite simply, we don't know enough to decide if this was an improper order by the judge. The bar for this order being appropriate is pretty high, but all of the things that we would need to know in order to determine whether it reached that height are unknown to us.
There are two things to be considered here. First, we don't know what the comment was, so we cannot accurately judge whether it goes over the line and requires the poster be revealed. Second, depending on what the comment actually was, it is possible that whether or not there is anything to be gained by suing for damages depends on who made the comment in the first place (for example, if the comment was made by someone who would gain by influencing the Mom's behavior out of fear for her child it would be significantly different than some random stranger just going off on a rant).
an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.
Great. This argument boils down to "Someone who we were told was wrong turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is wrong (and by extension everyone who we are told is wrong) must also be right." I have no idea whether or not these whistleblowers are correct or not, but this "argument" by analogy is worse than useless, because it encourages fuzzy thinking.
Except I can't remember any economists who were demonized for pointing out problems with the economy in 2007. I can remember lots of news articles about economists talking about how bad things were.
My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.
Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Please explain how having worked a mere two years as a corporate lawyer in the 1970's indicates that he is in the tank for them? Or do you have some other evidence that he is in the tank for them?
Here's one:
Person A runs a tavern. Person B (after a few beers) drives his car into that of Person A. Person B pays $150 to Person C to fix the scratches on Person A's car. Person C uses his $150 income at Person A's tavern.
Who profited by the exchange of $150? Are all three people better off?
The problem that you are referring to is what is called the "Broken Window Fallacy". The problem with your example is that it Person B did not receive anything in this economic exchange, except for "forgiveness" for damaging Person C's car. Person B and Person C would have been better off if Person B had never run into Person C's car.
Your other analogy involving increased water prices is based on only one person drinking at Person A's bar, if instead of just one person drinks at person A's bar, 1,001 (or more) people each year drink at person A's bar, then value is increased (you are estimating that water prices increase by approximately 1% for 100,000 people, if greater than 1% of those 100,000 get value from the bar, than there is a greater than 1% increase in wealth to pay for that 1% increase in cost).
For that reason, spreading around existing software doesn't really create any new wealth using p2p since very little resources are expended. It just redistributes existing wealth. If you want to create new wealth with software you have to write new code. This takes labor.
Sorry, that just isn't true. If I acquire software that increases the efficiency with which I am able to produce something that has value, my wealth has increased. New wealth does not necessarily require expending resources. Anything that increases my productivity increases my wealth (even if the only thing that increases as a result is my free time).
At just one percent of glass, ETFE is described as 99 percent nothing.
Then why didn't they name it "Congress"?
Because it is much cheaper nothing than you ever get from Congress.
So when is the EU going to have national healthcare?
So, the Constitution doesn't limit Congress' power after all?
If your reading is correct, why was the Sixteenth Amendment necessary?
I have seen no reference to any such provision in the just passed bill. If a bill such as what you had outlined had been proposed (instead of this monstrosity--any bill that is longer than "War & Peace" is a monstrosity) there would have been greater support for it than for this bill.
You and several other people have suggested things that would have been great ideas to discuss as individual laws. They are ideas that could have been implemented as stand alone laws, that then could have been eliminated or tweaked if they did not work as planned.
Nothing about public insurance prevents private operators - we don't want Canada's system after all - but there are real economic benefits to cutting people who do nothing but run interference against our own productivity out of the economy. Basic math: A rescission worker uses her own labor to interfere with the labor of both the doctor and the patient. Even ignoring the loss of efficiency due to ill laborers, and even assuming the doctor is not spending any time on hold (ha!), every unit of work you pay the person authorizing care interferes with a minimum of two people, for effectively no gain.
This ignores the moral problems involved in paying companies to deny care - denying a straight A surgical student preventative care for cancer, for example (a friend of mine). That only makes sense if you intend to restrict care to society.
Plenty of money available for health providers after we slaughter the hogs in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. There could easily be a 15% gain in efficiency and a 15% gain in efficiency turns America into a net exporter again.
So instead we will pay bureaucrats to deny care, how has this improved the situation? I am not sure how you see setting up a government bureaucracy will yield a net gain in efficiency.
After we slaughter the pharmaceutical industry, where do you propose getting new life saving drugs from?
If it is that easy, why do we need this almost 2000 page bill to fix healthcare?
I would support such a plan, I have not seen it proposed. I am not sure that such a plan would work, but the risks if it fails are fairly small, and the rewards disproportionately large, so it would be worth a try. The problem with the proposed healthcare legislation is that the risks if it fails (which I think probable) are huge and the rewards if it succeeds are minimal.
You didn't answer the question, how would you decide who gets lifesaving healthcare? If there is enough to go around, it won't be expensive.
So, since there isn't enough healthcare to go around, how will you decide who gets it?
Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to implement this? If Congress has the authority to do this, what keeps it from doing anything it chooses?
So, how would you decide who gets access to life saving procedures? A lottery?
Who do you suggest should pay the doctors, nurses, etc? How much should they be paid? Who decides how much they should be paid?
I recommend that the people receiving their services should pay them. The answer to how much they should be paid is how much those receiving those services are willing to pay.
The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215. Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total. It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.
The reason that deciding who gets healthcare on the basis of ability to pay is that what when demand for medical services goes up, the best way to get more providers of medical services is to increase what they get paid. Under this law, how will they increase the number of medical providers?
No, this system does not allow vote buying, it does not verify that your vote was counted the way you voted, only that your vote was counted. Of course that is part of the problem, how do I know that the system recorded my vote the way I entered it? Second, how does a non computer programmer know that the system actually does what is claimed? Finally, how does even a computer programmer know that the software that does this is actually installed on the voting machine he/she votes on (and not some software that mimics it).
There's more than one of us.
It's funny that the media tried to make Ron Paul out to be some sort of radical fringe loon, but now that that the election is over, the media seems to love him.
Ron Paul is a radical fringe loon. Of course, he is no more so than Obama.