There is, there are the corporations and there are the consumers. The consumers in the US go along with the draconian laws hoping that their stocks in media companies will gain value. When stock values go up far enough, investment bankers sell their stocks and call it "profit taking". It's taxed at 15% here and isn't included in entitlement income taxes either. We in the US are getting screwed, as well, we're just too naive to realize it and take a stand against it.
Perhaps you're confusing morality with ethics. Some confuse ethics with the study of morals. Morals are more often put forward as if they were facts e.g. "It's wrong to lie". Ethics is based on the logical reasoning behind those suggested facts. It's not that I don't lie because "it's wrong", it's that I don't lie because I know that people will eventually notice, and then they'll never believe me when I'm not lying. It's not that I don't steal because of any religious work, I don't steal because theft destroys interpersonal and business relationships, which are often far more valuable than any perceived immediate gain.
My point is that I don't choose my actions based on morality at all, therefore I am amoral. I don't believe in any moral values, I believe in intrinsic value. The social contract benefits all, those who break it benefit least. I don't know one good thing about Falwell, and I don't live far from Lynchburg.
A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
If one interprets Morality as done for the right reasons without sound ethical argument, then you are flat out wrong. One extracts much more material benefit from others by treating them well than they do from a one time robbery. Very rarely does one go down an unethical path and prosper, long term. I do nothing out of morality, as I define it, because I believe the right (ethically) are the correct actions (logically beneficial). I am amoral, however I would contend that I behave significantly better than the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jerry Falwells of this world.
Please, don't confuse people who like to have more customized software on their phones, tablets, computers, servers or consoles with people that illegally break into company computer systems for fun or profit. They're very different.
Just because I'm inclined to mod my phone doesn't mean I'd ever consider corporate sabotage. I would also mod a tablet, and being open to modding would make a tablet more attractive to me, even if doing so officially voided any software warranty or phone support. We've been able to do as we please with PC's for a very long time, usually people keep the stock OS. See what it has done for PC market share.
At first it will be "UNLIMITED TRANSACTIONS" that are included with your plan. As it starts to take off, your next contract will have a 25 cent per transaction fee, but you'll be able to buy blocks of transactions at $5/300, $10/700, $20/unlimited. There will be a disclaimer at the bottom of your bill that although you may have transactions remaining does not guarantee that you will have funds available.
When unemployment is high the inexperienced often suffer the most. It's the kids who are the least experienced and thus they are the ones most affected by unemployment. People who are laid off that have better qualifications often settle for less money, and in lesser positions that the inexperienced would otherwise be doing.
Offering a kid $20 to mow your lawn gets the kid occupied for an hour or so, and you can be certain that $20 is going straight into the economy elsewhere. The more you spend money directly in your community, the more you will see that community prosper. Go buy garbage from Walmart if you want to see China prosper.
Either that or look at any of the developing countries in the Western Hemisphere, minus Cuba, and you'll see a strong resemblance to what you're describing.
. . . not only do students lose about 2-3 months in the summer, they also lose 2-3 months in the fall reviewing all the stuff they covered in the previous year that they've forgotten over the break.
This is actually wrong for many students. The big problem is that the school system coddles the stupid and in so doing make the whole thing redundant for everyone. If you want people to be good marksmen, make the targets smaller and farther. We're so addicted to evaluations that we forget to teach the actual material being evaluated. Most people can make up what they've forgotten without spending half the year on reviewing the latter half of the previous year. This is why intelligent people become bored of school.
With 9% unemployment, kids can't find jobs until a while after college these days. Instead of saying "get off my lawn" we should be saying "here's $20, mow my lawn."
I knew an electronics teacher who worked part time at Radio Shack because it was fun, in 2005. Has it deteriorated since then? Could it be more localized? I still find the people I meet at local Radio Shacks to be fairly knowledgeable about the small electronic components they sell.
Don't forget that in America there is also a strong counter-culture of do-it-yourself types. A lot of people like that are here. I didn't learn much in school, but I always had my own research projects. The difference was that I didn't exactly report on what I researched, or care to. There are a lot of us that take pride in building our own homes, fixing our own motorcycles and brewing our own beer. A lot of us consider Harley riding, Jack Daniels drinking, iPhone buying jerks to be dweebs with more dollars than sense.
From what I could tell of the design, it was rounded at the bottom and squared at the top. The iPad is tapered to rounded edges, the design isn't. The Galaxy 10.1 has the rounding in the middle, and not the top. The front of the Samsung resembles many flat screen TV's, only smaller. What are they suing over again? Having looked at both products, both seem to be significantly different from the design.
No, frivolously suing all of their competition over things that are common sense, where they were awarded patents by adding the words "on a mobile communications device" to something else that already existed, makes them a patent troll. Taking their competition to court over 12 baseless patents only to find that only 2 stick is what makes them a troll. Using patents to limit innovation and competition is what makes them a troll. Just because you bought something they sold doesn't make you a fool, you couldn't have known they'd turn out so ugly.
Come on now. IF the West has been secretly attacked, why would it/we launch a PUBLIC attack in retaliation. I'd be inclined to believe that there are constant "cyber attacks" in both directions. I'd say you'd be a fool not to believe that there is retaliation of some sort, after stuxnet.
The broken window fallacy would suggest that money not spent on anything that is cheap or free would be spent on something more useful or otherwise needed.
While it is normal for the tech industry to have patents for the purposes of litigation, much of the time it is for defensive litigation. I see 3 classes of patent holders:
Patent Trolls only purchase or hold patents to sue. Much of the time these patents are very shallow, sometimes with clear and obvious prior art.
Companies that sue excessively. Oracle, Microsoft, Apple and probably a few others. They innovate, they make real products, they patent every part of their products. They initiate lawsuits over patent infringement, and throw every patent that might be relevant at it. Often the defendant decides that lawyers cost more than settlements, and they end up paying licensing fees, whether the suits were valid or not. Sometimes we get fireworks and the defendant has a decent size patent portfolio and an inclination to counter sue.
Companies that acquire patents defensively. They will sue over their patents, but typically only in counter suit. Sometimes their patent portfolios are enough to back the accusers down before getting to court, often a settlement or mutual patent licensing agreement is reached.
Here we're discussing a specific example of Apple suing Samsung over design innovations which all seem to be pretty obvious. I would like to see specific examples of Google, HP, Dell, Samsung, Nokia and Nintendo suing over patent infringement where they had not been sued first. I'm not saying that I doubt you, I'm saying that I believe you enough to read evidence of such.
I'm certain that if you've worked with a lawyer before, you've received a bill that was the complete and whole truth. At least the promise to take you to collections if left unpaid had to be honest.
The USPTO grants high tech patents based on virtually nothing, and lets the courts, corporations and lawyers work out who has the real rights to any innovation, and whether or not there was prior art. How else are lawyers expected to profit from technology?
Bah, my Palm Treo had a slide to unlock, it was a switch on it, much like the switches that were on earlier portable devices. Where Apple innovated is that they took all of those buttons and added the words "on a touchscreen" to their functionality. Some of it is really ugly (virtual keypads) some of it is pretty nice (not having to use a stylus to navigate). I still won't buy an Apple product, I see it more as siding with the lawyers than the engineers.
The iPod touch is more a mini-tablet or a phone without being a phone than it is an MP3 player. It was more a market test to determine the viability of a larger device without phone capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, there are the corporations and there are the consumers. The consumers in the US go along with the draconian laws hoping that their stocks in media companies will gain value. When stock values go up far enough, investment bankers sell their stocks and call it "profit taking". It's taxed at 15% here and isn't included in entitlement income taxes either. We in the US are getting screwed, as well, we're just too naive to realize it and take a stand against it.
Perhaps you're confusing morality with ethics. Some confuse ethics with the study of morals. Morals are more often put forward as if they were facts e.g. "It's wrong to lie". Ethics is based on the logical reasoning behind those suggested facts. It's not that I don't lie because "it's wrong", it's that I don't lie because I know that people will eventually notice, and then they'll never believe me when I'm not lying. It's not that I don't steal because of any religious work, I don't steal because theft destroys interpersonal and business relationships, which are often far more valuable than any perceived immediate gain.
My point is that I don't choose my actions based on morality at all, therefore I am amoral. I don't believe in any moral values, I believe in intrinsic value. The social contract benefits all, those who break it benefit least. I don't know one good thing about Falwell, and I don't live far from Lynchburg.
A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
If one interprets Morality as done for the right reasons without sound ethical argument, then you are flat out wrong. One extracts much more material benefit from others by treating them well than they do from a one time robbery. Very rarely does one go down an unethical path and prosper, long term. I do nothing out of morality, as I define it, because I believe the right (ethically) are the correct actions (logically beneficial). I am amoral, however I would contend that I behave significantly better than the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jerry Falwells of this world.
Please, don't confuse people who like to have more customized software on their phones, tablets, computers, servers or consoles with people that illegally break into company computer systems for fun or profit. They're very different.
Just because I'm inclined to mod my phone doesn't mean I'd ever consider corporate sabotage. I would also mod a tablet, and being open to modding would make a tablet more attractive to me, even if doing so officially voided any software warranty or phone support. We've been able to do as we please with PC's for a very long time, usually people keep the stock OS. See what it has done for PC market share.
Or the stability of their currency?
It is possible to lose superpower status without instantly becoming a third world nation.
Just look at Britain.
At first it will be "UNLIMITED TRANSACTIONS" that are included with your plan. As it starts to take off, your next contract will have a 25 cent per transaction fee, but you'll be able to buy blocks of transactions at $5/300, $10/700, $20/unlimited. There will be a disclaimer at the bottom of your bill that although you may have transactions remaining does not guarantee that you will have funds available.
Of course I'm just making this up.
Your point being?
When unemployment is high the inexperienced often suffer the most. It's the kids who are the least experienced and thus they are the ones most affected by unemployment. People who are laid off that have better qualifications often settle for less money, and in lesser positions that the inexperienced would otherwise be doing.
Offering a kid $20 to mow your lawn gets the kid occupied for an hour or so, and you can be certain that $20 is going straight into the economy elsewhere. The more you spend money directly in your community, the more you will see that community prosper. Go buy garbage from Walmart if you want to see China prosper.
Either that or look at any of the developing countries in the Western Hemisphere, minus Cuba, and you'll see a strong resemblance to what you're describing.
. . . not only do students lose about 2-3 months in the summer, they also lose 2-3 months in the fall reviewing all the stuff they covered in the previous year that they've forgotten over the break.
This is actually wrong for many students. The big problem is that the school system coddles the stupid and in so doing make the whole thing redundant for everyone. If you want people to be good marksmen, make the targets smaller and farther. We're so addicted to evaluations that we forget to teach the actual material being evaluated. Most people can make up what they've forgotten without spending half the year on reviewing the latter half of the previous year. This is why intelligent people become bored of school.
With 9% unemployment, kids can't find jobs until a while after college these days. Instead of saying "get off my lawn" we should be saying "here's $20, mow my lawn."
I knew an electronics teacher who worked part time at Radio Shack because it was fun, in 2005. Has it deteriorated since then? Could it be more localized? I still find the people I meet at local Radio Shacks to be fairly knowledgeable about the small electronic components they sell.
Don't forget that in America there is also a strong counter-culture of do-it-yourself types. A lot of people like that are here. I didn't learn much in school, but I always had my own research projects. The difference was that I didn't exactly report on what I researched, or care to. There are a lot of us that take pride in building our own homes, fixing our own motorcycles and brewing our own beer. A lot of us consider Harley riding, Jack Daniels drinking, iPhone buying jerks to be dweebs with more dollars than sense.
I'm in Charlottesville, VA. We certainly felt it here. Many of my Richmond friends are posting to Facebook about it, so it was significant there, too.
From what I could tell of the design, it was rounded at the bottom and squared at the top. The iPad is tapered to rounded edges, the design isn't. The Galaxy 10.1 has the rounding in the middle, and not the top. The front of the Samsung resembles many flat screen TV's, only smaller. What are they suing over again? Having looked at both products, both seem to be significantly different from the design.
No, frivolously suing all of their competition over things that are common sense, where they were awarded patents by adding the words "on a mobile communications device" to something else that already existed, makes them a patent troll. Taking their competition to court over 12 baseless patents only to find that only 2 stick is what makes them a troll. Using patents to limit innovation and competition is what makes them a troll. Just because you bought something they sold doesn't make you a fool, you couldn't have known they'd turn out so ugly.
Come on now. IF the West has been secretly attacked, why would it/we launch a PUBLIC attack in retaliation. I'd be inclined to believe that there are constant "cyber attacks" in both directions. I'd say you'd be a fool not to believe that there is retaliation of some sort, after stuxnet.
The broken window fallacy would suggest that money not spent on anything that is cheap or free would be spent on something more useful or otherwise needed.
While it is normal for the tech industry to have patents for the purposes of litigation, much of the time it is for defensive litigation. I see 3 classes of patent holders:
Patent Trolls only purchase or hold patents to sue. Much of the time these patents are very shallow, sometimes with clear and obvious prior art.
Companies that sue excessively. Oracle, Microsoft, Apple and probably a few others. They innovate, they make real products, they patent every part of their products. They initiate lawsuits over patent infringement, and throw every patent that might be relevant at it. Often the defendant decides that lawyers cost more than settlements, and they end up paying licensing fees, whether the suits were valid or not. Sometimes we get fireworks and the defendant has a decent size patent portfolio and an inclination to counter sue.
Companies that acquire patents defensively. They will sue over their patents, but typically only in counter suit. Sometimes their patent portfolios are enough to back the accusers down before getting to court, often a settlement or mutual patent licensing agreement is reached.
Here we're discussing a specific example of Apple suing Samsung over design innovations which all seem to be pretty obvious. I would like to see specific examples of Google, HP, Dell, Samsung, Nokia and Nintendo suing over patent infringement where they had not been sued first. I'm not saying that I doubt you, I'm saying that I believe you enough to read evidence of such.
I'm certain that if you've worked with a lawyer before, you've received a bill that was the complete and whole truth. At least the promise to take you to collections if left unpaid had to be honest.
The USPTO grants high tech patents based on virtually nothing, and lets the courts, corporations and lawyers work out who has the real rights to any innovation, and whether or not there was prior art. How else are lawyers expected to profit from technology?
Bah, my Palm Treo had a slide to unlock, it was a switch on it, much like the switches that were on earlier portable devices. Where Apple innovated is that they took all of those buttons and added the words "on a touchscreen" to their functionality. Some of it is really ugly (virtual keypads) some of it is pretty nice (not having to use a stylus to navigate). I still won't buy an Apple product, I see it more as siding with the lawyers than the engineers.
August 2010 is much later than when Oracle bought Sun and long after Android was initially announced. In fact, all this email was sent just 2 days before Oracle filed their lawsuit.
The iPod touch is more a mini-tablet or a phone without being a phone than it is an MP3 player. It was more a market test to determine the viability of a larger device without phone capabilities.