- Women recognize a deadend, inherently unsocial job when they see one.
While that theory is nice to women, the fact is that they tend (for reasons that have yet to be understood) to have their own brand of dead-end, crap job. There's a high concentration of women in liberal arts, history, biology, and languages, as well as architecture, and they do get their PhDs there after being properly exploited, and then go nowhere.
I am dismayed at how the 21st century has turned work into a pointless hamster wheel for so many people. We were promissed flying cars, unmetered energy, and riches for everyone. What the fuck happened?
The gold standard never collapsed so this analogy is fundamentally broken.
No? I know some people bunker gold and feel smart about it, but that's it. Perhaps its more helpful to tell people like you that the economies built around the gold standard were not as successful as one might want, so it suffered from some lack of appreciation at some point. Since gold has some additional uses (which a bitcoin has not), such lack of appreciation will mean collapse. Until the next round of idiot libertarians find the idea appealing, and discover some absurd argument to justify to themselves trying the whole thing again.
Such as people are ignorant of economics, if they don't adhere to my biases?
Could you please make sure your sentences make at least a little bit of sense? Thank you.
C) Bitcoin can collapse just like any other currency. I'm not sure what could lead you to think otherwise.
Uh, no. It can collapse even more dramatically than most other currencies. In fact, it will, simply because it works like a bad case of the gold standard.
Perhaps its collapses will so drill into people some basic knowledge of modern economics. If, in the process, bitcoin also brings ruin and suffering to libertarians and gangsters, then so much for the better.
but you can't really blame them for trying (it's their nature).
Yeah. And you can't blame killers for killing people (it's their nature). With that kind of argument, we could as well eradicate the whole 'good and bad' categories. Let's go fully moral-relativistic and make this planet an evil madhouse for good.
Of course you can blame them. And of course the people responsible for that action deserve shit and then some.
They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive.
That would include "making the world a better place, so that I live in a better world".
In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.
If we were allowed to have good teachers they could easily do better than computers, but since we cannot have good teachers in schools bring on the automation I say.
Yes, just fire everybody from the good jobs, so that they can work as packbots. Nice idea. [/sarcasm]
Yes there is, as long as it happens before the patent is granted. Preliminary patents are published and prior art is solicited. This typically takes up to 3 years.
Which means that you have to keep reading patents so that you know that you have to do something to get a patent dismissed. It also means that if you do not do that, you may be sued, and may have to hire an attorney, burn money, etc, etc, for nothing in particular. That is an unnecessary and expensive burden on the innovator, and yet another pretty clear argument against the patent system.
From TFWU: "If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?"
How did the economy get so skewed that something that is a real product which can serve a social good is ignored for sheer speculation?
What actually happened is that the writer of that article outed himself as being a prick who'd never do anything, no matter how important, if there's no money in it for him (one also wonders about all those things he'd do for enough money). He's so full of it, he cannot even conceive of other people doing things for other reasons than money exclusively.
Of course people will invest in blockbuster cancer drugs (well, we first need a blockbuster cancer drug).
How about letting patent examiners determine the duration instead of keeping a fixed time for everything?
My personal opinion on this is that, to fix the issues around patenting of pharmaceuticals, the best is to devise a new system to substitute the one based on patents. I think it would be preferable for the state to grant monopolies after the fact. Maybe using some auction system, maybe something else. Once a possible drug has been determined as being promising, the state could contract someone to do the clinical trial, or perhaps even do it itself through funding for universities, or other organizations. Of course, this rises the specter of corruption and so on, but i think it is likely that such a system could be engineered to work a lot better than the existing one.
This type of system already exists in other areas. Nuclear plants in most countries are owned by the state and operated by private companies. Similar arrangements exist for the production of explosives and some poisonous substances. Mining is another classic example of such a type of system.
As things stand nowadays, the best way of sinking a promising therapy is to publish the details unpatented. This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and could be fixed by a scheme like the one above. Also, since patents expire without anything to mitigate the effects, there is an incentive to invent nonexistent illnesses and useless drugs, a behavior which is itself dangerous to public health.
The bottom line: Both Republicans and Democrats pretty much suck. To favor one party over the other is pretty foolish.
That is imbecile drivel. Obama is pretty much an enlightened saint next to all the crap the Republicans had as possible candidates. Claiming there is no difference is just utter idiocy.
I have no idea what these bug reports are talking about. Some of the reports make it sound as if FF is basically unusable, which definitively contradicts all my experience with it. It just downloads stuff without any trouble, and that's it.
Oh, good... a whole post where every sentence is either a fallacy or insult. This means that under my doctrine of "debate anything where facts are valued" I can ignore you now.
That's because you keep saying things that show complete ignorance of how the patent system works.
Bullshit. What happens is that you see many of its bugs as features, most likely because you profit from the current (broken and immoral) state of affairs.
Here, I think it's moral that someone who invests time and effort in working out an idea should get a chance to make it a business, without getting screwed by the fast-moving predatory companies out there. The legal system currently aligns with that.
No, the legal system currently aligns with that even trivial ideas that do not take more than a couple of hours to come up with, and that would occur to anyone faced with the same technical problems, are worthy of making people rich at the expense of others. The legal system currenlty aligns with vague and broad patents being a legitimate weapon for extortion and harrassment. This is obviously inmoral to me.
Some of the worst predatory companies out there are precisely the ones with the big patent portfolios, and these patents are their biggest weapon. One of the most damaging aspect of the current patent system is the huge legal risk that it presents to anyone that actually wants to do something.
I believe you're a self-absorbed asshole who hasn't bothered to learn about the patent system more than read Slashdot, see lawsuits, and declare it broken and bad.
The lawsuits alone are enough to see that the system is broken and bad. Why you do not accept that simple fact is beyond me.
Also, It is you who is the self-absorbed asshole that thinks the system must be right because of your brother-in-laws.
But again, that sort of thing's irrelevant.
Indeed. You feel entitled to be rich for doing very little at the expense of other people, on the basis of nothing in particular, and don't even think that this is evil. For some reason you believe that your argument (which argument?) is based on logic (of all things!). Wow.
That's rather the point... the court found that they did NOT come up with it independently. They willfully infringed, knowing that the process was patented and using the patent in their designs.
You keep making the argument that if I disagree with the patent system, it must be because I do not understand it. What the courts found is irrelevant, because these are judgements in the context of broken and inmoral laws. It is as if your reaction to beheadings in Saudi Arabia was saying that they were ordered by a court and so everything is OK.
And I sincerely believe that you are sick and evil.
Push email and one-click purchasing both describe a particular back-end system to reduce the overhead of making such a system work. The one-click purchasing patent in particular covered such things as keeping payment information readily available (yet separate enough to avoid insecurity) and the system for initiating order processing immediately while still allowing it to be canceled without excessive cost. Upon re-examination, some parts of the patent were clarified, some were rejected, and some were kept.
Which shows that the system is broken. Nobody that comes come up with the same process independently should be forbidden from using it at will.
Any set of rules that would reject clear patents is simply sick.
Anyway, someone who thinks that patents like push email and one click are legit is an enemy of thought and of humanity. Since push email was upheld, as well as one click, it is clear that the system as a whole is broken. Any set of rules that permits that kind of thing is simply sick.
Horseshit, or worse, is what you have between your ears.
Then why didn't you come up with it?
The subtlety is probably lost on you, but here it goes anyway. Comming up with something, and deciding to patent something, are completely different things.
Because you are a sociopath that things he should have no end of rights.
Oh, yes, of course using a technology has "nothing to do with the technology"! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
And here is why. You think that comming up with something minor, and then smuggling it into a standard, is actually a legit way of becoming insanely rich and powerful.
The problem is that a new invention (patentable) is often tied to a business idea (not patentable). Disclosing the invention means implicitly disclosing at least part of the idea. The inventor is forked: either his business idea is revealed to the market before time, and can therefore be copied approximately before launch; or he keeps it secret but foregoes all legal protection and the thing can be copied almost exactly after launch.
And then there is me, wondering why the hell I should care about mister "inventor". And, more importantly, why this "inventor" deserves to be granted harassing rights at the expense of everybody else in order to solve this particular problem of him.
Slashdot Mirror
While that theory is nice to women, the fact is that they tend (for reasons that have yet to be understood) to have their own brand of dead-end, crap job. There's a high concentration of women in liberal arts, history, biology, and languages, as well as architecture, and they do get their PhDs there after being properly exploited, and then go nowhere.
I am dismayed at how the 21st century has turned work into a pointless hamster wheel for so many people. We were promissed flying cars, unmetered energy, and riches for everyone. What the fuck happened?
No? I know some people bunker gold and feel smart about it, but that's it. Perhaps its more helpful to tell people like you that the economies built around the gold standard were not as successful as one might want, so it suffered from some lack of appreciation at some point. Since gold has some additional uses (which a bitcoin has not), such lack of appreciation will mean collapse. Until the next round of idiot libertarians find the idea appealing, and discover some absurd argument to justify to themselves trying the whole thing again.
Could you please make sure your sentences make at least a little bit of sense? Thank you.
Uh, no. It can collapse even more dramatically than most other currencies. In fact, it will, simply because it works like a bad case of the gold standard.
Perhaps its collapses will so drill into people some basic knowledge of modern economics. If, in the process, bitcoin also brings ruin and suffering to libertarians and gangsters, then so much for the better.
How do you know that?
Yeah. And you can't blame killers for killing people (it's their nature). With that kind of argument, we could as well eradicate the whole 'good and bad' categories. Let's go fully moral-relativistic and make this planet an evil madhouse for good.
Of course you can blame them. And of course the people responsible for that action deserve shit and then some.
That would include "making the world a better place, so that I live in a better world".
You are so small minded.
Yes, just fire everybody from the good jobs, so that they can work as packbots. Nice idea. [/sarcasm]
Which means that you have to keep reading patents so that you know that you have to do something to get a patent dismissed. It also means that if you do not do that, you may be sued, and may have to hire an attorney, burn money, etc, etc, for nothing in particular. That is an unnecessary and expensive burden on the innovator, and yet another pretty clear argument against the patent system.
What actually happened is that the writer of that article outed himself as being a prick who'd never do anything, no matter how important, if there's no money in it for him (one also wonders about all those things he'd do for enough money). He's so full of it, he cannot even conceive of other people doing things for other reasons than money exclusively.
Of course people will invest in blockbuster cancer drugs (well, we first need a blockbuster cancer drug).
No, because if this were true, then risk would not be risk. That is, if engaging in risky behavior somehow was safe, then it would not be risky.
The more risk you take, the higher the chance that you will end up sleeping under a bridge.
Because we are human beings, and a lot of us would love to be the hero that (for example) cured cancer. Just for kicks, you know?
Perhaps your image of humanity is too negative?
My personal opinion on this is that, to fix the issues around patenting of pharmaceuticals, the best is to devise a new system to substitute the one based on patents. I think it would be preferable for the state to grant monopolies after the fact. Maybe using some auction system, maybe something else. Once a possible drug has been determined as being promising, the state could contract someone to do the clinical trial, or perhaps even do it itself through funding for universities, or other organizations. Of course, this rises the specter of corruption and so on, but i think it is likely that such a system could be engineered to work a lot better than the existing one.
This type of system already exists in other areas. Nuclear plants in most countries are owned by the state and operated by private companies. Similar arrangements exist for the production of explosives and some poisonous substances. Mining is another classic example of such a type of system.
As things stand nowadays, the best way of sinking a promising therapy is to publish the details unpatented. This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and could be fixed by a scheme like the one above. Also, since patents expire without anything to mitigate the effects, there is an incentive to invent nonexistent illnesses and useless drugs, a behavior which is itself dangerous to public health.
Eeew... that horrendously baroque stuff is what exactly?
Better to use Lisp instead.
Wrong. I mean - no voice whatsoever? Aren't you making it too easy for yourself?
You can enter the parties and change things from within, at least locally. That is a possible way to start effecting changes.
That is imbecile drivel. Obama is pretty much an enlightened saint next to all the crap the Republicans had as possible candidates. Claiming there is no difference is just utter idiocy.
I have no idea what these bug reports are talking about. Some of the reports make it sound as if FF is basically unusable, which definitively contradicts all my experience with it. It just downloads stuff without any trouble, and that's it.
You do well then to ignore yourself.
You certainly leave in style.
Bullshit. What happens is that you see many of its bugs as features, most likely because you profit from the current (broken and immoral) state of affairs.
No, the legal system currently aligns with that even trivial ideas that do not take more than a couple of hours to come up with, and that would occur to anyone faced with the same technical problems, are worthy of making people rich at the expense of others. The legal system currenlty aligns with vague and broad patents being a legitimate weapon for extortion and harrassment. This is obviously inmoral to me.
Some of the worst predatory companies out there are precisely the ones with the big patent portfolios, and these patents are their biggest weapon. One of the most damaging aspect of the current patent system is the huge legal risk that it presents to anyone that actually wants to do something.
The lawsuits alone are enough to see that the system is broken and bad. Why you do not accept that simple fact is beyond me.
Also, It is you who is the self-absorbed asshole that thinks the system must be right because of your brother-in-laws.
Indeed. You feel entitled to be rich for doing very little at the expense of other people, on the basis of nothing in particular, and don't even think that this is evil. For some reason you believe that your argument (which argument?) is based on logic (of all things!). Wow.
You keep making the argument that if I disagree with the patent system, it must be because I do not understand it. What the courts found is irrelevant, because these are judgements in the context of broken and inmoral laws. It is as if your reaction to beheadings in Saudi Arabia was saying that they were ordered by a court and so everything is OK.
And I sincerely believe that you are sick and evil.
Which shows that the system is broken. Nobody that comes come up with the same process independently should be forbidden from using it at will.
It is you who is sick.
You don't read news, don't you?
Anyway, someone who thinks that patents like push email and one click are legit is an enemy of thought and of humanity. Since push email was upheld, as well as one click, it is clear that the system as a whole is broken. Any set of rules that permits that kind of thing is simply sick.
What a mindset you have. Nothing but egoism rules your world.
Horseshit, or worse, is what you have between your ears.
The subtlety is probably lost on you, but here it goes anyway. Comming up with something, and deciding to patent something, are completely different things.
Because you are a sociopath that things he should have no end of rights.
And here is why. You think that comming up with something minor, and then smuggling it into a standard, is actually a legit way of becoming insanely rich and powerful.
That is just insane.
And then there is me, wondering why the hell I should care about mister "inventor". And, more importantly, why this "inventor" deserves to be granted harassing rights at the expense of everybody else in order to solve this particular problem of him.