The Democrats on the other hand believe that represent the 'whole country' which essentially consists of a. minorites, b. women, or c. what the newspapers say, the choice of which depends on which group agrees with them. Believe it or not, that is not the whole country
The Sixth sense is Balance. The seventh is proprioception, which is knowing where where things are even though you can't see them- your hands when they are behind your back, or you feet, or for those of you have played the wii, where the cursor is, without looking. Proprioception [Wikipedia]
Not only that, but for things that are legit, you can't tell it that this program is always fine.
The most annoying thing about it is that it 1: blanks my screen for 5 seconds, 2: popups the box that says allow or deny (actually continue or cancel), and then 3: blanks out my screen for another five seconds to return to where i was. Time elapsed to open a program: 15 seconds.
Also, Vista seems to think i don't have access to files on my own freaking hard drive. And half the time I do, it first asks me "Are you sure you want to allow this file operation" and then "You need admin". Total time for a file operation: 30 seconds.
He is right, Vista isn't that bad. I got a computer back when you could only get Vista, and not XP, and the only problem I had was a lot of random software (from the internet mind you) didn't run or install. The only thing I couldn't get running was Trillian in fact. My only complaint about it is that it hogs memory. Its slow, but it is on a laptop
Without a patent, inventors wouldn't be inventors. And for the last time, no a patent is not the right to something, it recognizes the right, the moral right, and not the legal one, to intellectual property.
Yeah, of course there is a whole lot of open source software, that is free. But compared to all of the software that ISN'T, it might as well not exist.
No, you're probably going to stop making widgets for 40 hours a day 50 weeks a year and instead make one widget every year or two
Except now if I make one-tenth as many widgets say, the company can expect to see nearly every person in the country applying for a job, and production skyrockets.
Remember, the patent holder is the equivalent of China in your analogy, and the people against whom the patent is used are the people of China.
Actually the people with the right are the people. The people who should be giving it are China
The biggest problem with what you are saying, regardless of which one of us is right about the economics, and how much is produced, is that you refuse to believe that if someone makes something (a song, algorithm, book, etc.) they don't have the right to make money off of that.
It is not about the 'recognized right,' the point is that it is only fair to them that we let them make money for the products of their mind, and the way to do that is patents.
Meanwhile, the widget company is going to go out of business very rapidly because their costs are going to far outstrip their revenues.
In the real world there is no widget factory per se, instead there are several companies each competing for your 'labor'. The result? Fair market value.
get 90% of the invention for 50% of the cost by halving incentives
No. The goods get sold at market value. The only difference is that there is now about 10% more invention. And you might say that this creates a monopoly on the product. Actually it doesn't. People will still only want to pay a certain amount, and there is a certain price where profit would be maximized, this is the same regardless of how much the inventor is payed
A patent is a right to an invention. So you essentially said that the reason we have patents is because when you invent something patentable, you have a patent.
No, a patent recognizes the right to an invention: Just because China doesn't provide people freedom of speech doesn't mean they don't have the right to it, China just is taking it away
Also, if a patent is the right to an invention how can you come back and say that you don't have the right to the product of your work
Next you say you don't share the philosophy that all things should be for the public good, but you say that that is the purpose of patents.
What I'm saying is that I think that the natural incentives in certain fields are currently great enough to produce a lot of invention, disclosure, and bringing to market, that we don't need to add the artificial incentive of a patent.
Of course they are. Unfortunately, we aren't talking in terms of absolutes of no incentive or incentive, but rather how much. So yes there would still be incentive, but no, if we have patents there are even more incentives.
Basic economics tells you that more incentive creates more production
That is a tautology. It's also utterly wrong.
Tautology: In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new. [www.apologetics.org/glossary.html]
So what you're saying is that it is true, true again, and then false?
Either way, how is it false?
Where a patent does not produce a net public benefit we shouldn't have that patent.
What I'm getting here is a sense that all people exist for the public good. My question to you is: 1: Who does the public exist for/who is the public. 2: So should I devote my whole life to Open Source code and live off Raman for the rest of my life because it is good for the public
First of all, the purpose of patents is not to spur inventors to invent. They exist because when you invent a process, or anything original, you have the right to your invention.
Second, even if it was the point of patents, they don't help. Abolish patents, and software firms will have no incentive to write anything: anyone can steal it. Their only solution? Do what Microsoft does and have ridiculous anti-piracy measures that don't even work.
I will admit that some patents (like 1-click) are ridiculous however.
Not only that, but it reduces waste from things like cellphone chargers left plugged in: they continue to consume power even when they aren't charging anything. This might actually REDUCE usage, although I admittedly don't know how much they consume when not charging anything (chargers or the sheet). Not only that but no longer will devices come with their own cord, saving on production of wires, and the power used to make them. If as suggested, these gain widespread use and are almost everywhere, with an appreciable range, then we can expect to see batteries reduced in size, as they might only need to survive 30 minutes: from pad to pad.
Transparency is, in fact the most neccesary part of a democracy. Exhibit A: The first amendment. Exhibit B: What good are all the checks and balances and voting if people can't see whats going on in Washington. Exhibit C: If people were inherently good, then we would never had had a problem with the king and we'd still be British. But we're not.
Thats true, but hopefully we will stop hearing about this because Diebold will stop using things produced by Microsoft, and hopefully we will never see an America hater as president. Sorry Democrat
Actually, most people do think that the government has unlimited money, and that anything bought by the government is 'free'. Thats why so many people like the government to do things, because they don't realize how much money is actually spent.
Out of sight, out of mind.
The US did stand United. Back during WWII anyway, which is the last war we truly won.
>Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII.
Actually the Cold War involved the whole world. The US and the USSR brought the fight to just about every island nation there is
>Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general >culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know >that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard.
Yeah. Except for almost every other country in the Middle East has tried to kill them. Many times. Not to mention the speeches every other day about how evil Israel is.
I Think the EU is going down a well trodden road.
They have proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives. Much like Karl Marx. Actually, their premise is exactly that of Karl Marx, and leads the same place: Communism.
They have inspired fear of capitalism, and all but made it illegal (Sorry no specific link, do your own research.)
If the communism isn't enough, the EU is yet another pact, much like the Warsaw Pact.
WWIII was US against the USSR
WWIV is America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN.
WWV will be America vs. Communism, yet again.
The first 3 were easy, because the US stood united.
The next two will be hard because most of the US believes we should lose.
I think the real problem is Patents. No we shouldn't abolish them, but we should stop giving frivolous ones.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn965
Google Ridiculous Patent for more
Honestly we should have some common sense. Yes you can patent the lightbulb, or A new motor, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.
The biggest problem is the classification of some people as 'children'. The day someone turns 18 it doesn't magically make them a responsible adult. The line has been set as by age, but unfortunately that means very little. In fact, society would be much better off if there was a test that determined adulthood.
It should cover: Common Sense, Ability to transport oneself, Ability to house, feed, and take care of oneself, Ability to do the same for others.
Generally do things which are necessary in our society.
Creating this test would eliminate the arbitrary line, one which says that you can suddenly make your own decisions, smoke, etc.
Actually you want to buy stuff from China.
First, the Chinese heavily subsidize stuff coming from there, so essentially they give you free money.
Second, this increases the trade deficit, so the US owes China more money. It sounds bad, but its good, because not only do they give us more money, but we owe them money, so, should they ever want to declare war on us, or vice versa, they can look forward to economic collapse.
The best way to ensure the peace is to make countries economically inter-dependant
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrats on the other hand believe that represent the 'whole country' which essentially consists of a. minorites, b. women, or c. what the newspapers say, the choice of which depends on which group agrees with them. Believe it or not, that is not the whole country
The Sixth sense is Balance. The seventh is proprioception, which is knowing where where things are even though you can't see them- your hands when they are behind your back, or you feet, or for those of you have played the wii, where the cursor is, without looking. Proprioception [Wikipedia]
What it means is that without patents, they wouldn't invent.
Not only that, but for things that are legit, you can't tell it that this program is always fine.
The most annoying thing about it is that it 1: blanks my screen for 5 seconds, 2: popups the box that says allow or deny (actually continue or cancel), and then 3: blanks out my screen for another five seconds to return to where i was. Time elapsed to open a program: 15 seconds.
Also, Vista seems to think i don't have access to files on my own freaking hard drive. And half the time I do, it first asks me "Are you sure you want to allow this file operation" and then "You need admin". Total time for a file operation: 30 seconds.
Yes. Twice.
He is right, Vista isn't that bad. I got a computer back when you could only get Vista, and not XP, and the only problem I had was a lot of random software (from the internet mind you) didn't run or install. The only thing I couldn't get running was Trillian in fact. My only complaint about it is that it hogs memory. Its slow, but it is on a laptop
Without a patent, inventors wouldn't be inventors. And for the last time, no a patent is not the right to something, it recognizes the right, the moral right, and not the legal one, to intellectual property.
Yeah, of course there is a whole lot of open source software, that is free. But compared to all of the software that ISN'T, it might as well not exist.
What the law says the purpose is does not make it true. Also, the point is that inventors have the right to their inventions.
Also, more software is written with patents, by simple economics
All of the software you mention is very few. That would be like saying that charity denies capitilism. In fact, it is
No, you're probably going to stop making widgets for 40 hours a day 50 weeks a year and instead make one widget every year or two
Except now if I make one-tenth as many widgets say, the company can expect to see nearly every person in the country applying for a job, and production skyrockets.
Remember, the patent holder is the equivalent of China in your analogy, and the people against whom the patent is used are the people of China.
Actually the people with the right are the people. The people who should be giving it are China
The biggest problem with what you are saying, regardless of which one of us is right about the economics, and how much is produced, is that you refuse to believe that if someone makes something (a song, algorithm, book, etc.) they don't have the right to make money off of that. It is not about the 'recognized right,' the point is that it is only fair to them that we let them make money for the products of their mind, and the way to do that is patents. Meanwhile, the widget company is going to go out of business very rapidly because their costs are going to far outstrip their revenues.
In the real world there is no widget factory per se, instead there are several companies each competing for your 'labor'. The result? Fair market value.
get 90% of the invention for 50% of the cost by halving incentives
No. The goods get sold at market value. The only difference is that there is now about 10% more invention. And you might say that this creates a monopoly on the product. Actually it doesn't. People will still only want to pay a certain amount, and there is a certain price where profit would be maximized, this is the same regardless of how much the inventor is payed
A patent is a right to an invention. So you essentially said that the reason we have patents is because when you invent something patentable, you have a patent.
No, a patent recognizes the right to an invention: Just because China doesn't provide people freedom of speech doesn't mean they don't have the right to it, China just is taking it away
Also, if a patent is the right to an invention how can you come back and say that you don't have the right to the product of your work
Next you say you don't share the philosophy that all things should be for the public good, but you say that that is the purpose of patents.
What I'm saying is that I think that the natural incentives in certain fields are currently great enough to produce a lot of invention, disclosure, and bringing to market, that we don't need to add the artificial incentive of a patent.
Of course they are. Unfortunately, we aren't talking in terms of absolutes of no incentive or incentive, but rather how much. So yes there would still be incentive, but no, if we have patents there are even more incentives.
Basic economics tells you that more incentive creates more production
That is a tautology. It's also utterly wrong. Tautology: In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. Usually, it is a non-sensical statement. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new. [www.apologetics.org/glossary.html] So what you're saying is that it is true, true again, and then false? Either way, how is it false? Where a patent does not produce a net public benefit we shouldn't have that patent. What I'm getting here is a sense that all people exist for the public good. My question to you is: 1: Who does the public exist for/who is the public. 2: So should I devote my whole life to Open Source code and live off Raman for the rest of my life because it is good for the public
First of all, the purpose of patents is not to spur inventors to invent. They exist because when you invent a process, or anything original, you have the right to your invention. Second, even if it was the point of patents, they don't help. Abolish patents, and software firms will have no incentive to write anything: anyone can steal it. Their only solution? Do what Microsoft does and have ridiculous anti-piracy measures that don't even work. I will admit that some patents (like 1-click) are ridiculous however.
Not only that, but it reduces waste from things like cellphone chargers left plugged in: they continue to consume power even when they aren't charging anything. This might actually REDUCE usage, although I admittedly don't know how much they consume when not charging anything (chargers or the sheet). Not only that but no longer will devices come with their own cord, saving on production of wires, and the power used to make them. If as suggested, these gain widespread use and are almost everywhere, with an appreciable range, then we can expect to see batteries reduced in size, as they might only need to survive 30 minutes: from pad to pad.
I'm not saying other countries didn't win. I'm just saying we did.
That is exactly why America is failing
Transparency is, in fact the most neccesary part of a democracy. Exhibit A: The first amendment. Exhibit B: What good are all the checks and balances and voting if people can't see whats going on in Washington. Exhibit C: If people were inherently good, then we would never had had a problem with the king and we'd still be British. But we're not.
Thats true, but hopefully we will stop hearing about this because Diebold will stop using things produced by Microsoft, and hopefully we will never see an America hater as president. Sorry Democrat
Actually, most people do think that the government has unlimited money, and that anything bought by the government is 'free'. Thats why so many people like the government to do things, because they don't realize how much money is actually spent. Out of sight, out of mind.
The US did stand United. Back during WWII anyway, which is the last war we truly won. >Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII. Actually the Cold War involved the whole world. The US and the USSR brought the fight to just about every island nation there is >Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general >culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know >that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard. Yeah. Except for almost every other country in the Middle East has tried to kill them. Many times. Not to mention the speeches every other day about how evil Israel is.
I Think the EU is going down a well trodden road. They have proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives. Much like Karl Marx. Actually, their premise is exactly that of Karl Marx, and leads the same place: Communism. They have inspired fear of capitalism, and all but made it illegal (Sorry no specific link, do your own research.) If the communism isn't enough, the EU is yet another pact, much like the Warsaw Pact. WWIII was US against the USSR WWIV is America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN. WWV will be America vs. Communism, yet again. The first 3 were easy, because the US stood united. The next two will be hard because most of the US believes we should lose.
I think the real problem is Patents. No we shouldn't abolish them, but we should stop giving frivolous ones. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn965 Google Ridiculous Patent for more Honestly we should have some common sense. Yes you can patent the lightbulb, or A new motor, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.
Yeah. It does. But how does the US do? Russia? Europe? Do India and China Cooperate? Or Nuke war?
The biggest problem is the classification of some people as 'children'. The day someone turns 18 it doesn't magically make them a responsible adult. The line has been set as by age, but unfortunately that means very little. In fact, society would be much better off if there was a test that determined adulthood. It should cover: Common Sense, Ability to transport oneself, Ability to house, feed, and take care of oneself, Ability to do the same for others. Generally do things which are necessary in our society. Creating this test would eliminate the arbitrary line, one which says that you can suddenly make your own decisions, smoke, etc.
Actually you want to buy stuff from China. First, the Chinese heavily subsidize stuff coming from there, so essentially they give you free money. Second, this increases the trade deficit, so the US owes China more money. It sounds bad, but its good, because not only do they give us more money, but we owe them money, so, should they ever want to declare war on us, or vice versa, they can look forward to economic collapse. The best way to ensure the peace is to make countries economically inter-dependant