I've been down on the current patent situation for a while, but for some reason I'd not looked at it from this angle before. I always figured the biggest problem was that useful inventions were getting locked up for too long by patenting them. But in this case the patents are discouraging valid solutions because the patented options are more profitable. I suppose that this was obvious to some, but I think it's interesting in a subtle way: not only do patents lock up useful creations, they also lock out useful creations. They create a false market for novelty.
All this is assuming that the claims in the story are legit, but it's a worthwhile angle to consider nonetheless.
I remember a couple of hacks in Unreal Tournament that allowed you to keep bodies (and body parts) around as long as you wanted, as well as to keep blood stains, bullet holes, and powder burns on the walls and objects as long as you liked. Friends and I would crank them all the way up and play a small-room deathmatch. It actually made me queasy at points. By the end of the round the place looked like a slaughterhouse in hell. It was pretty damn disturbing.
And, uh, I loved it:)
There was still a technical limitation though, if you set it to keep them permanently and played a long round, your performance would degrade considerably over time.
So you spend money on computers without researching?
What an odd sentiment. I mean, yeah buyer beware and all that, but even so that still doesn't absolve the seller of guilt if their products don't work as advertised. If mac pros are nothing but snake oil, Apple should be taken to task, whether or not the people buying the product did research. And then there's the fact that this entire discussion is actually on the topic of Apple trying to hide information, so the suggestion to "do research" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I'm a Mac user. I love my macbook pro and OSX. But it's people defending Apple in these circumstances that give rise to the cult-like perception. Be honest: Apple could improve quality and service a lot.
You are quite right... not so much on evolution specifically, but in that many people have latched on to science as if it were religion. However, that is just people's shortcomings; we all have a strong desire to find something permanent and unchanging on which to base our worldview. Probably because we're creatures of habit and we hate having to adapt, and also because we are all insecure and dislike being wrong. In any case, pure science is about discovery, so it must always allow the presentation of new evidence and be willing to adapt. That has to be tempered, though, with wasting time listening to every crackpot that comes along. In some cases (like the argument about evolution), it is tiresome to go around in circles with people who refuse to believe it, so you may encounter some responses that seem like closemindedness when it's really just fatigue.
Specifically on evolution, I'm sure the timelines are off a bit, maybe a few million years here and there. It is hard to be more precise with things that long ago:) But the general principles of evolution are as sound as just about anything ever is in science. Including it matching our observation in the past century.
I don't see how meat encased in ancient bones is proof of anything imparticular, except that if something is sealed away it can last a long long time. That particular bit of evidence doesn't seem to say much about the timeline to me... if something is stored in a way as it could last 6000 years, I'd guess that 65 million years later, undisturbed, it might be similar.
Fair enough -- I think we basically agree. But didn't Newton and most scientists before Einstein think that Newton's theory applied in the general case? I guess that's what I meant by wrong. But perhaps I'm wrong about that:)
I don't know if this is true, but an architect friend of mine said that for work he prefers imperial to metric... and he was raised in Korea using the metric system. His explanation was that in architecture, you often divide things up by fractions as you work, and it is easier to do the fraction math in your head than dealing with long decimals. I have no idea if this is true since I can't do math in my head at all these days...
Now of course, you could certainly do metric in fractions, saying "1/32 cm" instead of ".3125 mm", but that's not really the metric system in the larger sense then, is it? I don't know if this really matters or not, but I found it interesting that a person raised with the metric system could prefer imperial at all.
That's an interesting definition of "totally correct". Newton's theories are wonderful, and very useful, but they were written as complete desriptions and they weren't complete descriptions. In fact I'll say that Einstien's is an incomplete description. And if/when new evidence comes to light we respectfully demote the old and make use of the new. This is the beauty of science, and why it is not a religion.
I posted in reply to the other defenders of Newton, but to say again: I get it. It's an extremely applicable theory. However, it had to be adjusted because it was an incomplete description. All theories (i.e. models of the world) probably are, including Einstein's. And that's okay. In fact it is my favorite facet of science, that there need be no dogma; we have our best current understanding and we adapt as new evidence comes to light. This is what separates science from religion, though not, unfortunately, for everyone.
Look, there's no need to defend Newton... his theories are still applicable to nearly all physics situations. But the fact that Einstein found previously unknown boundaries is proof that the original theory was wrong. It was incomplete, like all scientific theories, because they are models of the world, not the world itself. That doesn't diminish their importance at all. In fact, it is the acceptance that all scientific theories are incomplete that separates science from religion. True science has no dogma. And that honesty of its own limitations is why I can trust it.
I intend Newton no disrespect -- for nearly all practial purposes his theory of gravity gives accurate enough predictions. It's just important to remember that the hallmark of science is that all theories are open to be disproved. Once any theory is accepted as dogma it's not science. That's why science is not a religion.
That said, I tend to live my life as if most scientific theories are fact. No point questioning things every day unless somebody has evidence:)
He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars
I like how the studio thinks the percentage that they agreed to pay him turned out to be "a lot" that they can reneg. And they keep throwing out this line about how much money he's made to kill people's sympathy for him. But, er, well, why should they get to keep the money? The fact is (at least from what I've read) is that they agreed to pay him on certain terms in the contract, and now they're whining because it was more successful than they expected. Which means they got more than they planned too. But the suits just don't like the idea of the grubby artist personally making so much.
I think current patent and copyright law is silly, but trademarks are a bit different, IMO. I believe it is really is important for consumers to be able to tell that they're buying from one company as opposed to another. Quality control and service are meaningless if others can easily impersonate or cause confusion as to who you're really dealing with. Trademarks do a good job at handling this.
It may be that things have gotten out of hand with the interpretation, that is, courts being too sensitive to what creates "customer confusion". Also it was easier when trademarks were more local in scope, but the internet has kind of blown that. Still, I think trademark law is a greater good than evil even today.
(and this coming from someone who was cease-and-desisted by Mattel a few years back)
I've been going to auto shows since I was a little kid, and one thing I've learned is that "concept cars" don't get built for mass production. Not even close cousins. At least not by American car companies. Only the most mundane technologies from concept cars trickles into production models. They're just cool looking things that the creative staff makes to draw people to that manufacturer's area, so that people will also see the basic cars.
You might be able to find an exception or two, but overall that's the way it is. I think the Volt sounds pretty cool. I own a Prius now, and if the Volt was well made, reasonably priced, and comfortable, I'd consider it for my next car. But once I saw them calling it a "concept" car, I lost hope.
BTW, why don't we have a full electric with a sterling engine generator... aren't they much more efficient than internal combustion? And with the electric buffer, the slow startup time shouldnt be an issue.
I would still argue that a) the people picking fruit for $50/day are more ambitious than average because they were at least motivated enough to change their situation and b) they wouldn't necessarily be picking fruit for $50/day if they had other options here. But a lot of what you're saying is true too. My goal in taking such an extreme position here is to get people to stop thinking so simplistically about illegal immigrants. Think about it: we've decided to label a group of people "illegal". The peope themselves illegal! Even though they have not done anything viscious or hurtful, or violated anyone else's rights. Doesn't that smell a little rotten? And we don't have any reasonable way for them to earn their way into the country, despite the fact that anyone willing to earn their way in is likely to be a greater asset to the country than the random people born here on any given day.
As to bringing their culture whole into this country, yes, everyone wants to keep their culture whole. Just like we do. But they all blend together in time.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am an American born of primarily Italian immigrant descent. My wife and her family are legal Korean immigrants who play a strongly positive role in the economy (including employing American citizens) though they never learned to speak English as well as most would like. I manage a team of developers that includes several legal immigrants, some of whom have been hamstrung in their lives and careers over and over again by the second class treatment by the government. I have some friends who are illegal immigrants, working and raising families here in the US better than some of the citizens I know, but again suffering by being in third class status.
From the trenches, it just doesn't seem to work well the way it's working now.
No, I don't think we're the best country in the world, I just think that looser immigration is a benefit. When I was originally referring to countries that "closed their borders" I was referring to the nations with walls and barbed wire fences and guards that shoot on sight, the ones who really don't want anyone getting in. There are people in the US who want that.
My original post gave two examples of why current immigration is bad for existing citzens, so no, I'm not saying the only reason is because we didn't have as many restrictions 100 years ago. I'm saying it is a better approach now.
And sure, if you throw out all the immigrants who are most suffering from immigration law (the ones we've arbitrarily labeled "illegal"), you're sure to find supporters.
The only thing you didn't see fit to respond to was the question: how did your ancestors get here? Maybe you think it doesn't matter? But I want to out any hypocricy in the debate as early as possible. Then the discussion can at least be honest.
Note, I didn't say "everyone", but "everyone who wants tighter border control". Of course it's an exaggeration, and you might be able to find some counter examples, but I've not yet heard anyone arguing in favor of tighter border control who isn't descended from willfull immigrants from the past couple centuries. Half my family is descended from Italian immigrants that arrived in the late 1800s, before any meaningful restrictions were in place. Yet they're in favor of locking the doors now. There's a huge amount of hypocricy in the discussion and it needs to be outed.
Yeah, I know all about the creation myth... I've read Zinn's "People's History". The nation was born of imperialism, but it grew and prospered because of immigrant labor. And they've always been treated as second class citizens despite that. The "illegal" label we've got today is just another form of racism and segregation.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. If we excluded only 2% of the people trying to get here today, do you think that would be considered border control? It was basically 50 cents and a quick look to get in. If the people who are clamouring for tighter border control want that, then fine. I have a feeling they want a little more restriction, thus my post.
Amen, and thanks for the example. This is exactly what the enlightened among us understand. Unfortunately there is a lot of ignorance in the US on this topic.
You're right, but you misunderstand. I'm saying they could have any job -- they could move freely. So if the manager tries to take too much advantage, they can start looking elsewhere. The problem now is that exactly what you say exists anyways but it is very hard for them to look elsewhere because they're walking around with the "illegal immigrant" tag... just a scarlet letter, really.
Everyone who wants tighter border controls is the decendant of someone who immigrated to this country before there were border controls. Think about that. If you want those tighter controls, tell me which country you'd have liked your family to have been stuck in, where you'd be living today.
Fact is, this country is wholly built by immigrants. Get used to it.
Interesting... I think if I asked most people they'd say that everyone on that list is having a rougher time of it than the US, who was founded on the principle that anyone could come in, and who's rapid growth in the last century was fueled entirely by immigrants, and who wasn't getting so catty about the whole thing until recently, as, coincidentally, we spiral down the tubes ourselves.
You realize that nearly every single person clamouring for tighter border controls now is the decendant of someone who came over before there were any border controls, right? That includes you Fulcrum... where did your family immigrate from? And do you think they should have been kept out?
I would set up armed guards on our side and publicize the fact
And there lies the fallacy that causes so many of our problems.
Can you tell me how successful the entirity of the US armed forces has been in Iraq at stopping frustrated, motivated people? Here's a hint: the answer rhymes with "not very". Repeat after me: you cannot force people to do things they think are worse than death.
You are right that Mexico needs to clean house. But like I said, what would you do? You really think you and your family, isolated in a corrupt country, are going to shovel shit against the storm there, risking life and limb, on the chance in hell that it'll make everything better? Hardly. You'll find someplace better to escape to. You would: I guarantee you. Because from the way you're talking you don't like taking shit. And that's what you're asking these people to do: to take shit that you wouldn't take. It's simply unrealistic.
And even if those people could be stopped from coming... why again would you want to stop them? They are smart ambitious people, or they wouldn't be trying to get in the US anyways. What is the big advantage in our keeping smart, ambitious people out of the country?
Illegal immigration sucks money from the economy and stresses our entire infrastructure.
Cool, we agree. So let's do away with illegal immigration. The easiest way to do that, by far, is to provide a straightforward way for any ambitious foreigner to become a legal immigrant. Suddenly they are not forced to dodge our government and make shady deals with shady employers, and they become an asset.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been down on the current patent situation for a while, but for some reason I'd not looked at it from this angle before. I always figured the biggest problem was that useful inventions were getting locked up for too long by patenting them. But in this case the patents are discouraging valid solutions because the patented options are more profitable. I suppose that this was obvious to some, but I think it's interesting in a subtle way: not only do patents lock up useful creations, they also lock out useful creations. They create a false market for novelty.
All this is assuming that the claims in the story are legit, but it's a worthwhile angle to consider nonetheless.
Cheers.
I remember a couple of hacks in Unreal Tournament that allowed you to keep bodies (and body parts) around as long as you wanted, as well as to keep blood stains, bullet holes, and powder burns on the walls and objects as long as you liked. Friends and I would crank them all the way up and play a small-room deathmatch. It actually made me queasy at points. By the end of the round the place looked like a slaughterhouse in hell. It was pretty damn disturbing.
:)
And, uh, I loved it
There was still a technical limitation though, if you set it to keep them permanently and played a long round, your performance would degrade considerably over time.
Cheers.
So you spend money on computers without researching?
What an odd sentiment. I mean, yeah buyer beware and all that, but even so that still doesn't absolve the seller of guilt if their products don't work as advertised. If mac pros are nothing but snake oil, Apple should be taken to task, whether or not the people buying the product did research. And then there's the fact that this entire discussion is actually on the topic of Apple trying to hide information, so the suggestion to "do research" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I'm a Mac user. I love my macbook pro and OSX. But it's people defending Apple in these circumstances that give rise to the cult-like perception. Be honest: Apple could improve quality and service a lot.
Cheers.
You are quite right... not so much on evolution specifically, but in that many people have latched on to science as if it were religion. However, that is just people's shortcomings; we all have a strong desire to find something permanent and unchanging on which to base our worldview. Probably because we're creatures of habit and we hate having to adapt, and also because we are all insecure and dislike being wrong. In any case, pure science is about discovery, so it must always allow the presentation of new evidence and be willing to adapt. That has to be tempered, though, with wasting time listening to every crackpot that comes along. In some cases (like the argument about evolution), it is tiresome to go around in circles with people who refuse to believe it, so you may encounter some responses that seem like closemindedness when it's really just fatigue.
:) But the general principles of evolution are as sound as just about anything ever is in science. Including it matching our observation in the past century.
Specifically on evolution, I'm sure the timelines are off a bit, maybe a few million years here and there. It is hard to be more precise with things that long ago
I don't see how meat encased in ancient bones is proof of anything imparticular, except that if something is sealed away it can last a long long time. That particular bit of evidence doesn't seem to say much about the timeline to me... if something is stored in a way as it could last 6000 years, I'd guess that 65 million years later, undisturbed, it might be similar.
But I'm always curious to hear more thoughts.
Cheers.
Fair enough -- I think we basically agree. But didn't Newton and most scientists before Einstein think that Newton's theory applied in the general case? I guess that's what I meant by wrong. But perhaps I'm wrong about that :)
Cheers.
I don't know if this is true, but an architect friend of mine said that for work he prefers imperial to metric... and he was raised in Korea using the metric system. His explanation was that in architecture, you often divide things up by fractions as you work, and it is easier to do the fraction math in your head than dealing with long decimals. I have no idea if this is true since I can't do math in my head at all these days...
Now of course, you could certainly do metric in fractions, saying "1/32 cm" instead of ".3125 mm", but that's not really the metric system in the larger sense then, is it? I don't know if this really matters or not, but I found it interesting that a person raised with the metric system could prefer imperial at all.
Cheers.
That's an interesting definition of "totally correct". Newton's theories are wonderful, and very useful, but they were written as complete desriptions and they weren't complete descriptions. In fact I'll say that Einstien's is an incomplete description. And if/when new evidence comes to light we respectfully demote the old and make use of the new. This is the beauty of science, and why it is not a religion.
Cheers.
Oh, I think this parent was a fool. And the schoolboard moreso for taking him seriously. I just thought it was an interesting example :)
Cheers.
I posted in reply to the other defenders of Newton, but to say again: I get it. It's an extremely applicable theory. However, it had to be adjusted because it was an incomplete description. All theories (i.e. models of the world) probably are, including Einstein's. And that's okay. In fact it is my favorite facet of science, that there need be no dogma; we have our best current understanding and we adapt as new evidence comes to light. This is what separates science from religion, though not, unfortunately, for everyone.
Cheers.
Look, there's no need to defend Newton... his theories are still applicable to nearly all physics situations. But the fact that Einstein found previously unknown boundaries is proof that the original theory was wrong. It was incomplete, like all scientific theories, because they are models of the world, not the world itself. That doesn't diminish their importance at all. In fact, it is the acceptance that all scientific theories are incomplete that separates science from religion. True science has no dogma. And that honesty of its own limitations is why I can trust it.
Cheers.
I intend Newton no disrespect -- for nearly all practial purposes his theory of gravity gives accurate enough predictions. It's just important to remember that the hallmark of science is that all theories are open to be disproved. Once any theory is accepted as dogma it's not science. That's why science is not a religion.
:)
That said, I tend to live my life as if most scientific theories are fact. No point questioning things every day unless somebody has evidence
Cheers.
Newton's Law of Gravity
Funny you should mention that one, as it was eventually proven to be incorrect. That's was Einstein's claim to fame.
In other words, even the most rigously tested theories are still just theories.
Cheers.
He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars
:)
I like how the studio thinks the percentage that they agreed to pay him turned out to be "a lot" that they can reneg. And they keep throwing out this line about how much money he's made to kill people's sympathy for him. But, er, well, why should they get to keep the money? The fact is (at least from what I've read) is that they agreed to pay him on certain terms in the contract, and now they're whining because it was more successful than they expected. Which means they got more than they planned too. But the suits just don't like the idea of the grubby artist personally making so much.
Screw you NewLine. Go Peter.
And heck, I didn't even like the films that much.
Cheers
However silly we might think trademark law
I think current patent and copyright law is silly, but trademarks are a bit different, IMO. I believe it is really is important for consumers to be able to tell that they're buying from one company as opposed to another. Quality control and service are meaningless if others can easily impersonate or cause confusion as to who you're really dealing with. Trademarks do a good job at handling this.
It may be that things have gotten out of hand with the interpretation, that is, courts being too sensitive to what creates "customer confusion". Also it was easier when trademarks were more local in scope, but the internet has kind of blown that. Still, I think trademark law is a greater good than evil even today.
(and this coming from someone who was cease-and-desisted by Mattel a few years back)
Cheers.
I've been going to auto shows since I was a little kid, and one thing I've learned is that "concept cars" don't get built for mass production. Not even close cousins. At least not by American car companies. Only the most mundane technologies from concept cars trickles into production models. They're just cool looking things that the creative staff makes to draw people to that manufacturer's area, so that people will also see the basic cars.
You might be able to find an exception or two, but overall that's the way it is. I think the Volt sounds pretty cool. I own a Prius now, and if the Volt was well made, reasonably priced, and comfortable, I'd consider it for my next car. But once I saw them calling it a "concept" car, I lost hope.
BTW, why don't we have a full electric with a sterling engine generator... aren't they much more efficient than internal combustion? And with the electric buffer, the slow startup time shouldnt be an issue.
Cheers.
I would still argue that a) the people picking fruit for $50/day are more ambitious than average because they were at least motivated enough to change their situation and b) they wouldn't necessarily be picking fruit for $50/day if they had other options here. But a lot of what you're saying is true too. My goal in taking such an extreme position here is to get people to stop thinking so simplistically about illegal immigrants. Think about it: we've decided to label a group of people "illegal". The peope themselves illegal! Even though they have not done anything viscious or hurtful, or violated anyone else's rights. Doesn't that smell a little rotten? And we don't have any reasonable way for them to earn their way into the country, despite the fact that anyone willing to earn their way in is likely to be a greater asset to the country than the random people born here on any given day.
As to bringing their culture whole into this country, yes, everyone wants to keep their culture whole. Just like we do. But they all blend together in time.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am an American born of primarily Italian immigrant descent. My wife and her family are legal Korean immigrants who play a strongly positive role in the economy (including employing American citizens) though they never learned to speak English as well as most would like. I manage a team of developers that includes several legal immigrants, some of whom have been hamstrung in their lives and careers over and over again by the second class treatment by the government. I have some friends who are illegal immigrants, working and raising families here in the US better than some of the citizens I know, but again suffering by being in third class status.
From the trenches, it just doesn't seem to work well the way it's working now.
No, I don't think we're the best country in the world, I just think that looser immigration is a benefit. When I was originally referring to countries that "closed their borders" I was referring to the nations with walls and barbed wire fences and guards that shoot on sight, the ones who really don't want anyone getting in. There are people in the US who want that.
My original post gave two examples of why current immigration is bad for existing citzens, so no, I'm not saying the only reason is because we didn't have as many restrictions 100 years ago. I'm saying it is a better approach now.
And sure, if you throw out all the immigrants who are most suffering from immigration law (the ones we've arbitrarily labeled "illegal"), you're sure to find supporters.
The only thing you didn't see fit to respond to was the question: how did your ancestors get here? Maybe you think it doesn't matter? But I want to out any hypocricy in the debate as early as possible. Then the discussion can at least be honest.
Cheers.
Note, I didn't say "everyone", but "everyone who wants tighter border control". Of course it's an exaggeration, and you might be able to find some counter examples, but I've not yet heard anyone arguing in favor of tighter border control who isn't descended from willfull immigrants from the past couple centuries. Half my family is descended from Italian immigrants that arrived in the late 1800s, before any meaningful restrictions were in place. Yet they're in favor of locking the doors now. There's a huge amount of hypocricy in the discussion and it needs to be outed.
Yeah, I know all about the creation myth... I've read Zinn's "People's History". The nation was born of imperialism, but it grew and prospered because of immigrant labor. And they've always been treated as second class citizens despite that. The "illegal" label we've got today is just another form of racism and segregation.
Cheers.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. If we excluded only 2% of the people trying to get here today, do you think that would be considered border control? It was basically 50 cents and a quick look to get in. If the people who are clamouring for tighter border control want that, then fine. I have a feeling they want a little more restriction, thus my post.
Cheers.
Amen, and thanks for the example. This is exactly what the enlightened among us understand. Unfortunately there is a lot of ignorance in the US on this topic.
Cheers.
You're right, but you misunderstand. I'm saying they could have any job -- they could move freely. So if the manager tries to take too much advantage, they can start looking elsewhere. The problem now is that exactly what you say exists anyways but it is very hard for them to look elsewhere because they're walking around with the "illegal immigrant" tag... just a scarlet letter, really.
Cheers.
Everyone who wants tighter border controls is the decendant of someone who immigrated to this country before there were border controls. Think about that. If you want those tighter controls, tell me which country you'd have liked your family to have been stuck in, where you'd be living today.
Fact is, this country is wholly built by immigrants. Get used to it.
Cheers.
Interesting... I think if I asked most people they'd say that everyone on that list is having a rougher time of it than the US, who was founded on the principle that anyone could come in, and who's rapid growth in the last century was fueled entirely by immigrants, and who wasn't getting so catty about the whole thing until recently, as, coincidentally, we spiral down the tubes ourselves.
You realize that nearly every single person clamouring for tighter border controls now is the decendant of someone who came over before there were any border controls, right? That includes you Fulcrum... where did your family immigrate from? And do you think they should have been kept out?
Cheers.
I would set up armed guards on our side and publicize the fact
And there lies the fallacy that causes so many of our problems.
Can you tell me how successful the entirity of the US armed forces has been in Iraq at stopping frustrated, motivated people? Here's a hint: the answer rhymes with "not very". Repeat after me: you cannot force people to do things they think are worse than death.
You are right that Mexico needs to clean house. But like I said, what would you do? You really think you and your family, isolated in a corrupt country, are going to shovel shit against the storm there, risking life and limb, on the chance in hell that it'll make everything better? Hardly. You'll find someplace better to escape to. You would: I guarantee you. Because from the way you're talking you don't like taking shit. And that's what you're asking these people to do: to take shit that you wouldn't take. It's simply unrealistic.
And even if those people could be stopped from coming... why again would you want to stop them? They are smart ambitious people, or they wouldn't be trying to get in the US anyways. What is the big advantage in our keeping smart, ambitious people out of the country?
Cheers.
Illegal immigration sucks money from the economy and stresses our entire infrastructure.
Cool, we agree. So let's do away with illegal immigration. The easiest way to do that, by far, is to provide a straightforward way for any ambitious foreigner to become a legal immigrant. Suddenly they are not forced to dodge our government and make shady deals with shady employers, and they become an asset.
Cheers.