> Or is everyone's stock answer to anyone's criticism > of Our Corporate Masters(tm), or anyone's demand for > corporate accountability not just to their stockholders, > but to their community, their customers, and their > resources (us, as it is our clicks and our eyes they > are selling to their advertisers) to "go out and start > your own company and stop criticisizing Our Greatness(tm)"?
That certainly seems to be becoming the case more and more, certainly here in the US. There is a growing intolerance for criticism of autority and dissent, which is very disturbing given how this country came into being to begin with.
The only meaningful way I could parse it is that three consumer appliances named Sony, IBM and Toshiba that are in need of more computing power got together and started developing this "Cell" processor. If they're sentient enough to do that, what more do they need?!
> being better than Budweiser or Miller is not a hugely difficult bar to climb over
After a few of those any bar would be nigh impossible to climb over, especially when the bartender keeps smacking you over the head with an empty Smirnoff bottle.
The waste consideration is not a point-of-view issue, so don't treat it as one. Sticking your head into the sand is not one of the viable approaches to nuclear energy (except when she blows, but then you'd want more than just your head under a lot of sand). I think you'll find that most nuclear power critics would be much less opposed if realistic and honest approaches to waste disposal were developed.
> Prior art, from the standpoint of a patent, only counts > if it is published. Writing something up, and keeping > it in your safe deposit box will not serve as prior art, > even if you fully describe the idea.
Published?! A notarized document is a legal record, that's the whole point of notarization. Of course, there are some common guidelines on the structure of a document that you may expect might be challenged later on, such as making it harder to me modified after being notarized (e.g. not leaving any empty space at the end etc.)
And what do you think you would have to do if someone willfully ignored your patent? Pretty much the same legal song and dance. Or do you think the USPTO will take up your defense just because they issued you a patent? Patents are only worthwhile if you have the financial basis to defend them.
Actually, put your idea to paper and have it notarized. That way you formally create prior art, and if you ever figure out a way to commercialize the idea, you won't be restricted by potential later patents.
SNMP may work fine for higher-end gear, but you tend to see it less often in consumer electronics. If they can get Linksys, SMC and Netgear onboard, the market will be flooded with the new standard, and the big guys will eventually have to support it as wll (in addition to SNMP).
This guy didn't just join the cafeteria of his university, but a club for solving puzzles and finding friends and someone to love (though not necessarily in that order).
Another example is Siemens' Transrapid project in Shanghai. One of the conditions China set for signing on to the project was to manufacture the track locally. Even though track manufacture was supposed to be the big cash cow for Siemens (and Germany, since all the components and raw materials including steel were to come from Germany), they agreed in order to sign on their first commercial customer. Shanghai was to be their loss leader, besides everyone knew the major cost with maglev was the ridiculously expensive track, so they didn't object too much. As the project progressed, Chinese engineers supposedly significantly lowered the cost of track and improved production efficiency (apparently by using concrete instead of steel for many components). Yet even though China was pretty much getting the system for free because of discounts, incentives and aid from Germany, they strictly controlled access for German engineers to the manufacturing facilities, being extremely paranoid of reverse IP transfer.
As coincidence would have it, mere months later China announced "significant" breakthroughs in their own home-grown maglev technology, demonstrating a new faster train that had gone nowhere fast before. I find this just slighly ironic. What are the odds that within the next decade this slower-but-cheaper system will show up all over Asia as a short haul people mover? Now don't get me wrong, I like affordable access to new tech as much as the next guy, and Germany is far from being the champion of cheap high-tech for the masses. But don't these people get just how Faustian this business with China really is?
> China seems to have achieved the social stability and unity > of purpose normally associated with totalitarianism, without > sacrificing the rising standards of living afforded by > capitalism. It's actually a pretty cool model.
You're drawing conclusions without looking at the bigger picture. The part of China that is experiencing this vast economic boom is TINY both in terms of percentage of the total population and geography. The current model only works because the HUGE BULK of the Chinese population is still being kept in blissful ignorance. If you read much about China, you will also find that the hotspots of political dissent strangely coincide with the areas of economic boom. Funny how when people learn to read and have a full tummy they tend to disagree with you more.
What it comes down to is the current model is not sustainable. Either the economic boom will collapse or dramatically slow down for various reasons, or else the percentage of the population attaining a certain level of education and prosperity will reach a critical mass that the Communist party will find itself unable to control anymore.
What all the newcomers will eventually find out is what the early "adopters" already have: that China is an industrial Black Widow. It wines and dines and flatters corporations it has interest in, gets them to commit major resources to China and thus into a vulnerable situation, and then it scavenges them to the highest degree possible for technical know-how and IP. It's happened with heavy technology companies, it's happened with electronics companies, it's happening with car manufacturers. And yet they are still all drawn to China by their money-grubbing little hearts. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in the long run most of these western corporations won't benefit much or any at all from that mythical Chinese exploding consumer and workforce base. But they will lose a lot of their technical advantage in the process, when all of a sudden they find themselves competing in their own home markets with either cheap and cheeky clones of their own products, or with cheap products heavily influenced by IP they so willingly handed to China as the price of doing business there. Of course, in their minds that will only happen to their competitors, not to themselves.
> It would be nice if you backed up your case with facts, > so that third parties could decide on the evidence.
What case is there that requires facts? Your statement was:
> O'Reilly doesn't like liars and theives. What's wrong with that? > [...] he is a bulldog to those who only use propoganda to make their points.
It is YOU who is simply making assertions (that his guests are "liars and theives") without backing them up (if he disagrees with guests and has valid rebuttals to their lies and thievery, he wouldn't have to cut off their mike). And by him being a "bulldog" you mean him telling guests to shut up, or cutting off their mike. I don't have to present any facts other than quoting you, since I merely claim that what you call news and reporting isn't really. And I am also claiming that Fox News' approach to reporting leads to the unquestioning and hook-line-and-sinker-swallowing mindset that you so nicely exemplify. And to quote an old cliche: that's how Nazi Germany started.
> It will actually piss you off, and make you feel stupid > for not recognising the tactics they employ.
Unless of course you fully agree with their agenda and believe in the same definition of "democracy" being when everyone agrees with you and the rest are punished.
> What's wrong with FoxNews? They have pretty standard reporting
"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor doesn't strike me as "reporting" so much as rah-rah cheerleading. And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal.
Slashdot Mirror
> Or is everyone's stock answer to anyone's criticism
> of Our Corporate Masters(tm), or anyone's demand for
> corporate accountability not just to their stockholders,
> but to their community, their customers, and their
> resources (us, as it is our clicks and our eyes they
> are selling to their advertisers) to "go out and start
> your own company and stop criticisizing Our Greatness(tm)"?
That certainly seems to be becoming the case more and more, certainly here in the US. There is a growing intolerance for criticism of autority and dissent, which is very disturbing given how this country came into being to begin with.
The only meaningful way I could parse it is that three consumer appliances named Sony, IBM and Toshiba that are in need of more computing power got together and started developing this "Cell" processor. If they're sentient enough to do that, what more do they need?!
> All you do is to demonstrate that you are a silly idiot.
Or that you really don't like either the name or design of Daihatsu. Which OTOH you seem to be really enamoured with. Congrats!
> being better than Budweiser or Miller is not a hugely difficult bar to climb over
After a few of those any bar would be nigh impossible to climb over, especially when the bartender keeps smacking you over the head with an empty Smirnoff bottle.
And the Nazis championed animal rights. Yet somehow they don't seem to be much remembered for that.
> For the nTH time this is not a democracy.
> It is a representive republic.
Then stop spreading quite so much "freedom and democracy" already.
The waste consideration is not a point-of-view issue, so don't treat it as one. Sticking your head into the sand is not one of the viable approaches to nuclear energy (except when she blows, but then you'd want more than just your head under a lot of sand). I think you'll find that most nuclear power critics would be much less opposed if realistic and honest approaches to waste disposal were developed.
> Prior art, from the standpoint of a patent, only counts
> if it is published. Writing something up, and keeping
> it in your safe deposit box will not serve as prior art,
> even if you fully describe the idea.
Published?! A notarized document is a legal record, that's the whole point of notarization. Of course, there are some common guidelines on the structure of a document that you may expect might be challenged later on, such as making it harder to me modified after being notarized (e.g. not leaving any empty space at the end etc.)
And what do you think you would have to do if someone willfully ignored your patent? Pretty much the same legal song and dance. Or do you think the USPTO will take up your defense just because they issued you a patent? Patents are only worthwhile if you have the financial basis to defend them.
Actually, put your idea to paper and have it notarized. That way you formally create prior art, and if you ever figure out a way to commercialize the idea, you won't be restricted by potential later patents.
"Improval" is what you get if you connect the battery the wrong way around.
> Observe Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe who strips naked,
> swims out to the shipwreck, and fills his pockets with
> all the necessities he requires.
After being stranded on an island and losing a lot of weight due to malnutrition, you too will develop pockets where there were none before.
Some other Twain quotes on patriotism. I particularly like the second and fifth ones.
Metcalfe is a bit of a hotbag that's been resting on his Ethernet laurels for a while now. He seems to have more opinions than ideas.
SNMP may work fine for higher-end gear, but you tend to see it less often in consumer electronics. If they can get Linksys, SMC and Netgear onboard, the market will be flooded with the new standard, and the big guys will eventually have to support it as wll (in addition to SNMP).
I doubt that kind of "permission" would be up to him, anyway. Did he finance the movie himself?
This guy didn't just join the cafeteria of his university, but a club for solving puzzles and finding friends and someone to love (though not necessarily in that order).
Another example is Siemens' Transrapid project in Shanghai. One of the conditions China set for signing on to the project was to manufacture the track locally. Even though track manufacture was supposed to be the big cash cow for Siemens (and Germany, since all the components and raw materials including steel were to come from Germany), they agreed in order to sign on their first commercial customer. Shanghai was to be their loss leader, besides everyone knew the major cost with maglev was the ridiculously expensive track, so they didn't object too much. As the project progressed, Chinese engineers supposedly significantly lowered the cost of track and improved production efficiency (apparently by using concrete instead of steel for many components). Yet even though China was pretty much getting the system for free because of discounts, incentives and aid from Germany, they strictly controlled access for German engineers to the manufacturing facilities, being extremely paranoid of reverse IP transfer.
As coincidence would have it, mere months later China announced "significant" breakthroughs in their own home-grown maglev technology, demonstrating a new faster train that had gone nowhere fast before. I find this just slighly ironic. What are the odds that within the next decade this slower-but-cheaper system will show up all over Asia as a short haul people mover? Now don't get me wrong, I like affordable access to new tech as much as the next guy, and Germany is far from being the champion of cheap high-tech for the masses. But don't these people get just how Faustian this business with China really is?
> China seems to have achieved the social stability and unity
> of purpose normally associated with totalitarianism, without
> sacrificing the rising standards of living afforded by
> capitalism. It's actually a pretty cool model.
You're drawing conclusions without looking at the bigger picture. The part of China that is experiencing this vast economic boom is TINY both in terms of percentage of the total population and geography. The current model only works because the HUGE BULK of the Chinese population is still being kept in blissful ignorance. If you read much about China, you will also find that the hotspots of political dissent strangely coincide with the areas of economic boom. Funny how when people learn to read and have a full tummy they tend to disagree with you more.
What it comes down to is the current model is not sustainable. Either the economic boom will collapse or dramatically slow down for various reasons, or else the percentage of the population attaining a certain level of education and prosperity will reach a critical mass that the Communist party will find itself unable to control anymore.
What all the newcomers will eventually find out is what the early "adopters" already have: that China is an industrial Black Widow. It wines and dines and flatters corporations it has interest in, gets them to commit major resources to China and thus into a vulnerable situation, and then it scavenges them to the highest degree possible for technical know-how and IP. It's happened with heavy technology companies, it's happened with electronics companies, it's happening with car manufacturers. And yet they are still all drawn to China by their money-grubbing little hearts. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in the long run most of these western corporations won't benefit much or any at all from that mythical Chinese exploding consumer and workforce base. But they will lose a lot of their technical advantage in the process, when all of a sudden they find themselves competing in their own home markets with either cheap and cheeky clones of their own products, or with cheap products heavily influenced by IP they so willingly handed to China as the price of doing business there. Of course, in their minds that will only happen to their competitors, not to themselves.
Jeremy Glick.
> It would be nice if you backed up your case with facts,
> so that third parties could decide on the evidence.
What case is there that requires facts? Your statement was:
> O'Reilly doesn't like liars and theives. What's wrong with that?
> [...] he is a bulldog to those who only use propoganda to make their points.
It is YOU who is simply making assertions (that his guests are "liars and theives") without backing them up (if he disagrees with guests and has valid rebuttals to their lies and thievery, he wouldn't have to cut off their mike). And by him being a "bulldog" you mean him telling guests to shut up, or cutting off their mike. I don't have to present any facts other than quoting you, since I merely claim that what you call news and reporting isn't really. And I am also claiming that Fox News' approach to reporting leads to the unquestioning and hook-line-and-sinker-swallowing mindset that you so nicely exemplify. And to quote an old cliche: that's how Nazi Germany started.
Well, I rest my case. You are a classic product of The World According to Murdoch--I mean Fox News.
> It will actually piss you off, and make you feel stupid
> for not recognising the tactics they employ.
Unless of course you fully agree with their agenda and believe in the same definition of "democracy" being when everyone agrees with you and the rest are punished.
> What's wrong with FoxNews? They have pretty standard reporting
"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor doesn't strike me as "reporting" so much as rah-rah cheerleading. And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal.