Really? How do you figure that? From the fact that in the last 160 years there was an explosion of copyrighted information that is far more widely available, to more people, at a lower price, with more choice than ever before in history? From the fact that the authors are able to make a living, and in some cases get rich, while their works are still available (in paperback format at least) to the average person for the price of 2-3 cups of coffee, not to mention for free in libraries? From the fact that the piracy is not really so widespread as to make a dent in the economy of it, and on large enough scale it is relatively easily dealt by law (see the crushing Pirate Bay as an example). Nothing he said came true.
True, but because it is so much easier to copy books today it is also easy to cause far greater harm to the copyright holders. Today any idiot can easily and anonymously copy and distribute a book by the millions, so it can be argued that actually today there is a greater need for stiff fines as deterrence, or alternatively, a new workable model of protecting the rights of the author and incentive to create, without the need for such strict enforcement of copyright but unfortunately there is no such model yet.
Might be effective in getting the producers to dump the show again. Despite the fan base among geeks, it's obviously marginally profitable at best for them, hence the fact that it was already canceled once and the "dramatically slashed" budget this time.
Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.
That's easy, I have reliable evidence from the voices inside my head that we just exchanged some alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash for their silence.
Re:I'd fix bugs and contribute quality code
on
Firefox 3.5.1 Released
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Reiser is that you? I didn't know they let you have internet access now.
May be I have a more satisfactory answer for you. I understand that "the system of beliefs wherein propositions are taken to be true on faith" may be the meaning employed by the original poster who got me started. The question is: is it at all useful to talk about religions in such a way?
I see what you are saying, but before I get to it let me repeat my point. Whatever you mean by the word religion isn't what is commonly meant by that word, at least in overwhelming everyday usage in USA, so I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of oversimplifying when they use the word religion in that way just because it means something different to you. That's all I was saying, I don't know if it's a good thing or bad but the fact is that when most people talk about religion, they are in fact talking about something like "the system of beliefs wherein propositions are taken to be true on faith" and I would narrow it even further to a certain type of propositions involving God. You are talking about the broadest meaning of the word religion, and we are talking about the narrow one, and biased towards the Abrahamic religions. So at the end of the day I think we are actually arguing about word definitions.
And this is what gets me so upset: idiots who oversimplify. They are not helping, they are just pissing off more and more religious people. I am a science guy. I do want us to a parley with religions, mainly because I want our society to understand the sheer awesomeness of science as well as its limitations, and to use science to its advantage. And every time stupid people say things about religion that are stupid and untrue, we all loose.
I am perhaps unconsciously thinking too much of the likes of Christianity, Islam and Judaism when I talk about religion just because I am most familiar with them. In the sense of the word religion that I am using (OED no. 1 definition) the likes of Buddhism, Hinduism etc maybe shouldn't even be thought of as religion, but sort of philosophy etc, but again we are back to the definition of the words.
So, is there a conflict between religion and science. I would say that if a particular religion involves the following, then it is in conflict with science (note that what I mean by conflict doesn't imply hostility, merely a disagreement): a requirement that certain propositions are taken on faith rather than on evidence, that certain facts about the real world are divinely revealed through certain holy books or prophets etc rather than discovered by humans using their ability to think and reason, that those facts are not open to being changed as new evidence arrives. I think those things are fundamentally different from what science is all about. In fact I think they are harmful, especially for young people, in that they discourage discovery. Abrahamic religions abundantly contain all of those, so at least I think it is true that the core beliefs of those religions are fundamentally in conflict with science. I don't know enough about Hinduism, Buddhism etc.
As for whether it is a good thing to say that because we want to expose religious people to science so we don't want to be too blunt etc, well it may be so but that's a matter of tactics and frankly I don't know what's the best way to do it.
Ok, well if that's the case then the issue is the definition of the word religion. Here is the Oxford dictionary one:
religion
noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
What I am talking about is the first meaning, which is what I think vast majority of people associate with the word religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. As you say, how exactly a particular religion conflicts with science depends on the details of that religion, so technically it's a stretch to say that every religion must by definition be in conflict with science. I just don't happen to not know of any religion that doesn't make plenty of claims like that are in fact incompatible with science.
You say that religion is primarily about the existence of sacred writings and ritual. That may be true for you, but, again I think it's fair to say that that's not true in common use of the word. Let's take sacred writings first. Are they divine or not? If not, then ok. I can agree that there is literary and artistic value in them, as well as perhaps in their moral teachings, and they don't come into conflict with science. But again, if you take the common understanding of them, which is that they are created magically by a supernatural being, or that they are historically accurate (Noah's ark etc) then I'm afraid you do come into direct conflict with science. Same applies to religious rituals. There is social value in them, as in getting together with a common purpose etc., or in some cases artistic value, but again, the common understanding of them is they are done in order to worship a supernatural creator. In short, if I understand what you are saying, I think you are talking about one meaning of the word religion and the original poster and myself are talking about another meaning (the more common one).
Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong, rather than engage in name calling? What he is essentially saying is that religion is all about blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc) even in the face of complete absence of evidence, actually even in the face of very strong evidence contradicting those propositions (such as the evidence for evolution). On the other hand, science is about finding out about the world through scientific method (somewhat inaccurately summarized as show/demonstrate/repeat, but I get the point). Why is that a "dumb-ass comment" and why does it prevent any "dialog from happening"? It's a simple and obviously truthful statement and I am really curious why you, as well as couple of other posters, appear to be offended by it?
I suspect that it's cases like this that allow such laws to remain in effect - try to oppose the law on principle and you'll find yourself in the position of having to defend the bigots, something that even those most committed to free speech find repellent.
If you actually believe in free speech this is exactly when you should speak up. Believing only in free speech that you agree with is not believing in free speech at all.
Well yes, I happen to disagree with any outright prohibition of free speech, whether true or false, including yelling fire in a crowded theater - although, let those injured or the owner of the theater sue the culprit if they suffer any damages from it. While that's a minority position, you are going too far in the other direction. Are you really saying that making false claims about president's position on gun control ought to be a crime because some nutcase might decide to shoot somebody because of it? If so, then if you think my position is "dangerous" it's nothing compared to yours. There is practically no limit to government control of free speech if any false statement that might conceivably cause some psycho to go off can be prohibited. In my opinion, the only guilty parties in those shootings, as in Klan bombings, are the shooters and bombers themselves. They could have easily ignored those who "egged them on" but they chose not to.
I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused.
I don't believe in hate speech crime, not because I am a racist or a homophobe but because I believe in the right of individuals to think and to say whatever the fuck they want without somebody shutting their mouth by force or putting them in jail for it. Laws prohibiting hate speech don't have to be abused to be wrong, they are also wrong when functioning as intended. If you disagree with racists or homophobes feel free to say so, but don't use the force of government to shut them up because you are replacing one evil with a greater one. And besides, is there an easier thing to argue against and to ridicule than the irrational and primitive nonsense that such people tend to say. Why would you even need such laws is beyond me. I am only sorry that the US government is not willing to step up and protect people from other countries, however odious their beliefs might be, who are persecuted at home for no greater crime than speaking their mind and who seek refuge here.
Most of successful attacks on Windows these days involve tricking clueless users into running malware code themselves, and Linux is almost as exposed to that as Windows. I say almost since I assume that fewer people will be running it with admin permissions than windows (although who's to say they won't, cause it's easier). Even then, if you can trick a user into running an executable it seems just as easy for that executable to throw up prompts such as "important system update in progress, please enter your root password to continue" or something and obtain complete access to the system just like on Windows.
This seems to be a popular view here on slashdot but it ignores the fact that 90% of the computer users neither understand nor should have to understand a single bit of what the hell you are talking about. It should be considered a failure of the part of the computer industry to be making products that are incapable of being used for storing important data without expert level knowledge on how to secure it. We in that industry should start admitting that the issue is our fault instead of calling people twits for not knowing what a "router with a hardware firewall" is. Oh, and you can blame MS all you want but the truth is that Linux, if as widely adopted and used by ordinary computer illiterate users, and as targeted by the malware writers as Windows is, wouldn't be a whole lot batter.
Yes, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights reflects the western "rights" tradition. You think that just because a document exists in an international peacekeeping organization, that it's really a part of other cultures and accurately reflects their values? If so, that's pretty naive.
If China does not stand behind UNHR, it should state clearly what parts of it it disagrees with because they don't "reflect their values". China is a grown up country, it doesn't need you to defend it. But just out of curiosity, which of the enumerated rights in that document you think don't agree with Chinese values? They were drafted in order to be universal, hence the name, and one of the main people involved in drafting them was actually Chinese (P. C. Chang - admittedly from Taiwan but surely representative of Chinese culture and values).
I also mentioned the extreme amount of violence in China's recent history to contrast it with our own country's, which has not had any invasions or sustained any real violence on anywhere near the same scale. The average American Slashdotter is likely to have a very different perspective, in which it seems reasonable to view WoW-deprivation as some sort of evil government tyranny.
Oh, well, that I can agree with. I don't think the story in this article is a major example of government tyranny or anything like that. However it's worth remembering that there are plenty of real examples of government tyranny in China and saying that somehow that's ok because it's their culture to not respect the rights of individuals is patronizing as well as untrue. I know plenty of Chinese people here in the US and they seems to have much the same values as I do.
That's because "rights" are an idea from western civilization, and most other cultures had different notions about justice and social harmony.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ By the way, what exactly are you talking about? Chinese have had a turbulent history, so what? We shouldn't be critical of the current Chinese government because 40 million have died at the hands of its predecessor with whom (on paper at least) it shares the same ideology? I don't understand what your point is.
Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units
on
How Heavy Is a Petabyte?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thanks for nothing Peggy LeMone. Saying that a "typical cumulus cloud" weighs as much as 100 elephants is a meaningless statement without giving us a hint as to what the hell is the size of a "typical cumulus cloud". I bet we are talking about a hell of a lot greater volume than 100 elephants.
Here is an equally interesting piece of news for you: a pile of feathers is heavier than a tank! Of course it all depends on the size of the pile but who can bother with those little details.
Not sufficient though. As an exercise try inventing a new technology and then talk to investors about getting a funding for it and tell them your argument on how you don't want any patents because the cachet and the first mover will be enough, and see what they tell you after they laugh their ass off first.
Remember, the inventor starts out at an initial disadvantage since in order to break even they have to recoup the cost of developing the technology (which these days in case of advanced new technologies can be astronomical) whereas the copier doesn't have to do that. Copier's price for the same product is therefore by definition lower. Depending on the product, the costs of reverse engineering might be high or low or non-existent, but surely in every case they are much less than the costs of developing the technology in the first place. As for cachet, well in case of some products it might matter, but having a lower cost product is still a huge advantage for the copier, and it comes at the expense of the inventor.
So maybe that's what you're doing wrong? You have a high degree of urban sprawl and hence you have to drive too much to get your daily routine done?
I think that's true but the discussion started about how Europeans drive smaller cars and yet have fewer fatalities, so I was just pointing out that driving habits and other factors might be a bigger influence here than the size of cars.
Moreover, I can't find any statistics on average distance travelled so I wouldn't assume that easily that americans drive more or that the difference is significant anyway.
Well apart from strong anecdotal evidence that anybody like me who lived in Europe and US can easily confirm, the fact that Americans drive more can be inferred from the table you linked to: US has much more fatalities than Europe per person, but not so much per mile traveled,
I'll take your bet and double it. Most countries in the EU have either an 120 or a 130 km/h speed limit on freeways thats 75 or 80 mph for non-metrics.
Yes, but its not just about the speed limit on the freeways but also about how long you spend driving on the freeways as opposed to city streets. I'm guessing, also from anecdotal evidence, since I don't have any better, is that due to greater distance between cities and also the design of the cities which is much more spread out the Americans spend more time on freeways so the accidents, when they happen, are more likely to be fatal.
If you are referring to the first column in that table, it's a bogus comparison. Americans drive many more miles per year on average than Europeans, hence more chances to get killed. Second column "Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km" is a better comparison and US figure very much in line with west European averages. An even better comparison would take into account the average speeds involved in the accidents as I bet US average speeds are higher (much wider roads on average and more highway driving as trips are generally over greater distances). Yes, I know about autobahns but still in general I think that's true.
Note: I live in the US and drive a small fuel efficient car so don't mistake me for an SUV lover, I just hate misleading statistics
The Ford Fusion Hybrid is the first automotive hybrid drive train to be developed in the US, by a US auto company, and built in North America for an American car.
While it seems like a nice car, I hope you realize you are not doing Ford any favors by emphasizing those facts.
Patents should not be allowed to be used to hinder like Toyota is doing.
They are not. You are free to license the hybrid technology from them or develop your own. All major automakers including VW have patent portfolios numbering tens of thousands that are being licensed and crosslicensed all over the place, this is nothing unusual.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? How do you figure that? From the fact that in the last 160 years there was an explosion of copyrighted information that is far more widely available, to more people, at a lower price, with more choice than ever before in history? From the fact that the authors are able to make a living, and in some cases get rich, while their works are still available (in paperback format at least) to the average person for the price of 2-3 cups of coffee, not to mention for free in libraries? From the fact that the piracy is not really so widespread as to make a dent in the economy of it, and on large enough scale it is relatively easily dealt by law (see the crushing Pirate Bay as an example). Nothing he said came true.
True, but because it is so much easier to copy books today it is also easy to cause far greater harm to the copyright holders. Today any idiot can easily and anonymously copy and distribute a book by the millions, so it can be argued that actually today there is a greater need for stiff fines as deterrence, or alternatively, a new workable model of protecting the rights of the author and incentive to create, without the need for such strict enforcement of copyright but unfortunately there is no such model yet.
Might be effective in getting the producers to dump the show again. Despite the fan base among geeks, it's obviously marginally profitable at best for them, hence the fact that it was already canceled once and the "dramatically slashed" budget this time.
Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.
That's easy, I have reliable evidence from the voices inside my head that we just exchanged some alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash for their silence.
Reiser is that you? I didn't know they let you have internet access now.
In Soviet Russia, Linux runs mail-delivering Beowulf Cluster overlords. Ok, ok, that's one too far...
Just like my ex-girlfriend!
So they make inflatable sheep that light up?
May be I have a more satisfactory answer for you. I understand that "the system of beliefs wherein propositions are taken to be true on faith" may be the meaning employed by the original poster who got me started. The question is: is it at all useful to talk about religions in such a way?
I see what you are saying, but before I get to it let me repeat my point. Whatever you mean by the word religion isn't what is commonly meant by that word, at least in overwhelming everyday usage in USA, so I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of oversimplifying when they use the word religion in that way just because it means something different to you. That's all I was saying, I don't know if it's a good thing or bad but the fact is that when most people talk about religion, they are in fact talking about something like "the system of beliefs wherein propositions are taken to be true on faith" and I would narrow it even further to a certain type of propositions involving God. You are talking about the broadest meaning of the word religion, and we are talking about the narrow one, and biased towards the Abrahamic religions. So at the end of the day I think we are actually arguing about word definitions.
And this is what gets me so upset: idiots who oversimplify. They are not helping, they are just pissing off more and more religious people. I am a science guy. I do want us to a parley with religions, mainly because I want our society to understand the sheer awesomeness of science as well as its limitations, and to use science to its advantage. And every time stupid people say things about religion that are stupid and untrue, we all loose.
I am perhaps unconsciously thinking too much of the likes of Christianity, Islam and Judaism when I talk about religion just because I am most familiar with them. In the sense of the word religion that I am using (OED no. 1 definition) the likes of Buddhism, Hinduism etc maybe shouldn't even be thought of as religion, but sort of philosophy etc, but again we are back to the definition of the words.
So, is there a conflict between religion and science. I would say that if a particular religion involves the following, then it is in conflict with science (note that what I mean by conflict doesn't imply hostility, merely a disagreement): a requirement that certain propositions are taken on faith rather than on evidence, that certain facts about the real world are divinely revealed through certain holy books or prophets etc rather than discovered by humans using their ability to think and reason, that those facts are not open to being changed as new evidence arrives. I think those things are fundamentally different from what science is all about. In fact I think they are harmful, especially for young people, in that they discourage discovery. Abrahamic religions abundantly contain all of those, so at least I think it is true that the core beliefs of those religions are fundamentally in conflict with science. I don't know enough about Hinduism, Buddhism etc.
As for whether it is a good thing to say that because we want to expose religious people to science so we don't want to be too blunt etc, well it may be so but that's a matter of tactics and frankly I don't know what's the best way to do it.
Ok, well if that's the case then the issue is the definition of the word religion. Here is the Oxford dictionary one:
religion
noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
What I am talking about is the first meaning, which is what I think vast majority of people associate with the word religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. As you say, how exactly a particular religion conflicts with science depends on the details of that religion, so technically it's a stretch to say that every religion must by definition be in conflict with science. I just don't happen to not know of any religion that doesn't make plenty of claims like that are in fact incompatible with science.
You say that religion is primarily about the existence of sacred writings and ritual. That may be true for you, but, again I think it's fair to say that that's not true in common use of the word. Let's take sacred writings first. Are they divine or not? If not, then ok. I can agree that there is literary and artistic value in them, as well as perhaps in their moral teachings, and they don't come into conflict with science. But again, if you take the common understanding of them, which is that they are created magically by a supernatural being, or that they are historically accurate (Noah's ark etc) then I'm afraid you do come into direct conflict with science. Same applies to religious rituals. There is social value in them, as in getting together with a common purpose etc., or in some cases artistic value, but again, the common understanding of them is they are done in order to worship a supernatural creator. In short, if I understand what you are saying, I think you are talking about one meaning of the word religion and the original poster and myself are talking about another meaning (the more common one).
Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong, rather than engage in name calling? What he is essentially saying is that religion is all about blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc) even in the face of complete absence of evidence, actually even in the face of very strong evidence contradicting those propositions (such as the evidence for evolution). On the other hand, science is about finding out about the world through scientific method (somewhat inaccurately summarized as show/demonstrate/repeat, but I get the point). Why is that a "dumb-ass comment" and why does it prevent any "dialog from happening"? It's a simple and obviously truthful statement and I am really curious why you, as well as couple of other posters, appear to be offended by it?
Not very many scientists are religious: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Those that are do have a problem, they just choose to ignore it.
I suspect that it's cases like this that allow such laws to remain in effect - try to oppose the law on principle and you'll find yourself in the position of having to defend the bigots, something that even those most committed to free speech find repellent.
If you actually believe in free speech this is exactly when you should speak up. Believing only in free speech that you agree with is not believing in free speech at all.
Well yes, I happen to disagree with any outright prohibition of free speech, whether true or false, including yelling fire in a crowded theater - although, let those injured or the owner of the theater sue the culprit if they suffer any damages from it. While that's a minority position, you are going too far in the other direction. Are you really saying that making false claims about president's position on gun control ought to be a crime because some nutcase might decide to shoot somebody because of it? If so, then if you think my position is "dangerous" it's nothing compared to yours. There is practically no limit to government control of free speech if any false statement that might conceivably cause some psycho to go off can be prohibited. In my opinion, the only guilty parties in those shootings, as in Klan bombings, are the shooters and bombers themselves. They could have easily ignored those who "egged them on" but they chose not to.
I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused.
I don't believe in hate speech crime, not because I am a racist or a homophobe but because I believe in the right of individuals to think and to say whatever the fuck they want without somebody shutting their mouth by force or putting them in jail for it. Laws prohibiting hate speech don't have to be abused to be wrong, they are also wrong when functioning as intended. If you disagree with racists or homophobes feel free to say so, but don't use the force of government to shut them up because you are replacing one evil with a greater one. And besides, is there an easier thing to argue against and to ridicule than the irrational and primitive nonsense that such people tend to say. Why would you even need such laws is beyond me. I am only sorry that the US government is not willing to step up and protect people from other countries, however odious their beliefs might be, who are persecuted at home for no greater crime than speaking their mind and who seek refuge here.
Most of successful attacks on Windows these days involve tricking clueless users into running malware code themselves, and Linux is almost as exposed to that as Windows. I say almost since I assume that fewer people will be running it with admin permissions than windows (although who's to say they won't, cause it's easier). Even then, if you can trick a user into running an executable it seems just as easy for that executable to throw up prompts such as "important system update in progress, please enter your root password to continue" or something and obtain complete access to the system just like on Windows.
This seems to be a popular view here on slashdot but it ignores the fact that 90% of the computer users neither understand nor should have to understand a single bit of what the hell you are talking about. It should be considered a failure of the part of the computer industry to be making products that are incapable of being used for storing important data without expert level knowledge on how to secure it. We in that industry should start admitting that the issue is our fault instead of calling people twits for not knowing what a "router with a hardware firewall" is. Oh, and you can blame MS all you want but the truth is that Linux, if as widely adopted and used by ordinary computer illiterate users, and as targeted by the malware writers as Windows is, wouldn't be a whole lot batter.
Yes, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights reflects the western "rights" tradition. You think that just because a document exists in an international peacekeeping organization, that it's really a part of other cultures and accurately reflects their values? If so, that's pretty naive.
If China does not stand behind UNHR, it should state clearly what parts of it it disagrees with because they don't "reflect their values". China is a grown up country, it doesn't need you to defend it. But just out of curiosity, which of the enumerated rights in that document you think don't agree with Chinese values? They were drafted in order to be universal, hence the name, and one of the main people involved in drafting them was actually Chinese (P. C. Chang - admittedly from Taiwan but surely representative of Chinese culture and values).
I also mentioned the extreme amount of violence in China's recent history to contrast it with our own country's, which has not had any invasions or sustained any real violence on anywhere near the same scale. The average American Slashdotter is likely to have a very different perspective, in which it seems reasonable to view WoW-deprivation as some sort of evil government tyranny.
Oh, well, that I can agree with. I don't think the story in this article is a major example of government tyranny or anything like that. However it's worth remembering that there are plenty of real examples of government tyranny in China and saying that somehow that's ok because it's their culture to not respect the rights of individuals is patronizing as well as untrue. I know plenty of Chinese people here in the US and they seems to have much the same values as I do.
That's because "rights" are an idea from western civilization, and most other cultures had different notions about justice and social harmony.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ By the way, what exactly are you talking about? Chinese have had a turbulent history, so what? We shouldn't be critical of the current Chinese government because 40 million have died at the hands of its predecessor with whom (on paper at least) it shares the same ideology? I don't understand what your point is.
Thanks for nothing Peggy LeMone. Saying that a "typical cumulus cloud" weighs as much as 100 elephants is a meaningless statement without giving us a hint as to what the hell is the size of a "typical cumulus cloud". I bet we are talking about a hell of a lot greater volume than 100 elephants.
Here is an equally interesting piece of news for you: a pile of feathers is heavier than a tank! Of course it all depends on the size of the pile but who can bother with those little details.
Well according to this about 500-1000 terabytes: http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The_Great_Gray_Ravelled_Knot.htm
So, with the average weight of 3 pounds, you can store 1 petabyte in 3-6 pounds of brain (1.3kg to 2.6kg).
Not sufficient though. As an exercise try inventing a new technology and then talk to investors about getting a funding for it and tell them your argument on how you don't want any patents because the cachet and the first mover will be enough, and see what they tell you after they laugh their ass off first.
Remember, the inventor starts out at an initial disadvantage since in order to break even they have to recoup the cost of developing the technology (which these days in case of advanced new technologies can be astronomical) whereas the copier doesn't have to do that. Copier's price for the same product is therefore by definition lower. Depending on the product, the costs of reverse engineering might be high or low or non-existent, but surely in every case they are much less than the costs of developing the technology in the first place. As for cachet, well in case of some products it might matter, but having a lower cost product is still a huge advantage for the copier, and it comes at the expense of the inventor.
So maybe that's what you're doing wrong? You have a high degree of urban sprawl and hence you have to drive too much to get your daily routine done?
I think that's true but the discussion started about how Europeans drive smaller cars and yet have fewer fatalities, so I was just pointing out that driving habits and other factors might be a bigger influence here than the size of cars.
Moreover, I can't find any statistics on average distance travelled so I wouldn't assume that easily that americans drive more or that the difference is significant anyway.
Well apart from strong anecdotal evidence that anybody like me who lived in Europe and US can easily confirm, the fact that Americans drive more can be inferred from the table you linked to: US has much more fatalities than Europe per person, but not so much per mile traveled,
I'll take your bet and double it. Most countries in the EU have either an 120 or a 130 km/h speed limit on freeways thats 75 or 80 mph for non-metrics.
Yes, but its not just about the speed limit on the freeways but also about how long you spend driving on the freeways as opposed to city streets. I'm guessing, also from anecdotal evidence, since I don't have any better, is that due to greater distance between cities and also the design of the cities which is much more spread out the Americans spend more time on freeways so the accidents, when they happen, are more likely to be fatal.
If you are referring to the first column in that table, it's a bogus comparison. Americans drive many more miles per year on average than Europeans, hence more chances to get killed. Second column "Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km" is a better comparison and US figure very much in line with west European averages. An even better comparison would take into account the average speeds involved in the accidents as I bet US average speeds are higher (much wider roads on average and more highway driving as trips are generally over greater distances). Yes, I know about autobahns but still in general I think that's true.
Note: I live in the US and drive a small fuel efficient car so don't mistake me for an SUV lover, I just hate misleading statistics
The Ford Fusion Hybrid is the first automotive hybrid drive train to be developed in the US, by a US auto company, and built in North America for an American car.
While it seems like a nice car, I hope you realize you are not doing Ford any favors by emphasizing those facts.
Patents should not be allowed to be used to hinder like Toyota is doing.
They are not. You are free to license the hybrid technology from them or develop your own. All major automakers including VW have patent portfolios numbering tens of thousands that are being licensed and crosslicensed all over the place, this is nothing unusual.