but it's unfair to creditors if the assets are not sold.
what do you think bankruptcy is for? for moving assets to your best buddy?
Like I said, I really oversimplified what I stated. Any time investors put money into a company, there is a risk. So simply holding a bunch of patents wouldn't mitigate the risk as much it does now. Or have patents that are transferable, but have a much shorter term. When someone comes up with something great, they have to choose if they want to be able to sell the patent or not and factor that into the cost of receiving it. I'm not sure if you were being factious regarding using bankruptcy to "your best buddy", but it has been used that way. In large corporations, it's also used to ensure the officers can run the company into the ground with no consequences for them.
the only thing is to make it stricter to get patents, in the way that it has to be something OMFG smart thing to invent one.
I mean, fuck, say you're running a search engine. say you have a database of ads. how much of an invention is it to fetch data from the two databases instead of just one with the word?
Agreed. Patents should not be granted because someone tacks on some new device at the end of and already existing patent, of obvious idea.
I really have to wonder what the people who started the patent system would have thought of this kind of thing. Something tells me this is not what they had in mind. I thought the whole idea was to protect the inventors. If a company goes bankrupt, they really don't need protection, so the patent should go into the public domain. If an individual is granted a patent, they should either have to do something with it in the allotted time, or lose it. Patents were not meant to be used as a way to sue companies as a means of making profit. Nor should massive corporations be able to use them as an Armageddon device against their competitors. I know my post sounds naive and that it's not that simple. But this is just not how the system was intended to work.
But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
You might want to consider that the fellow next to you with his BOSE QC3 headset on and plugged into the aircraft audio system is actually better able to pay attention to what is going on because he is better able to hear any announcements that are made. That's especially true when the plane is taking off and engines are at full noise output.
You might want to consider that in the cases I mentioned, virtually none of them even had the wire that plugs into the aircraft was even attached to the headphones.
What is your problem with people who are in first-class? Most of them are only there because they fly so much that they got upgraded to it for free. I don't fly nearly as much as I used to, but still get upgraded on occasion. Frankly people on any kind of electronics is a bigger problem in coach from what I've seen. I couldn't tell you how many times I've been in coach and someone never even bothered to turn off their phone or put it in airplane mode because it starts ringing right after takeoff or while the plane is landing. I've never heard that in business or first class. I always see people in coach putting in their earphones and listening to music as soon as the flight attendants are done walking around. Which is just fucking great if there's an emergency situation. Granted, I also see people wearing their Bose noise canceling headphones in 1st class, but I've also witnessed the attendants telling them to take the off, or at least turn them off almost every time.
Regardless, I agree with you. There needs to be consequences for assholes that do this kind of crap. It's pretty damn pathetic that people can't unplug for more than a few seconds these days. But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
the American public agrees that Wall Street should be moved to Kepler-78b.
We just need some clever marketing and we can get them to go volunteer. It should go something like this:
Tired of those long work hours? Move to Kepler-78b! With it's synergistic proximity to its sun, you can implement an entire year's worth of productivity in just 8.5 hours thereby streamlining your cloud solutions on a quantum scale (exponentially). Who wants to deal with those long brutal winters in NYC? We have nothing but sun. In fact K78b's integration with a self sustaining source of clean energy allows you to dynamically aggregate almost three years of solar convergence in just 24 hours. If you thought you could maximize your initiatives with 365 days a year, just think what the paradigm shift of 1030 years in 365 days will do for your mind share! You'll be able to monetize your solutions beyond the vertical bleeding-edge!
I had a 70s Triumph that was always difficult to get parts for.. even with the many clubs and such that celebrate those cars.
That's because it's statistically impossible to have everything functioning on a Triumph. There's some sort of universal law that if you fix something, something will automatically break on a Triumph or MG. And with so many people trying to keep them functioning, it's impossible to have enough part. I'm kidding, or course. But they are a labor of love for sure. I don't know anyone who has, or had on of these that didn't say the spent more time working on it than driving it. Still the TR7 and especially the TR8 was one hell of a fun car. I think the TR3 with the narrow grille was the best looking though.
Realistically, you are quite a bit more likely to die in your classic car than you are in a new car despite issues like this.
I guess that would depend on how you look at it. If you drive both in the same manner, this is probably true. However most people don't drive their "classic" car to and from work daily. Or in rush hour traffic, bad weather, etc. So realistically, you are less likely to be killed in a classic. Now if you look at the numbers of deaths when those cars were new, the 70's and 80's make those cars look like meat grinders, statistically. But they are "classics" now and not driven in the same manner.
The new car brakes better, handles better, is an order of magnitude safer in a collision thanks to the crumple zones, airbags, and modern collision testing requirements. It also uses less fuel, and pollutes less.
I think it depends on what kind of accident we're are talking about and what cars are involved. I have a theory for why people didn't tail gate as much in the past. Obviously tire and break technology was inferior. But also some of the interior trim in pre-1970 cars could have been used in the Freddy Kruger movies. People realized that if they rear-ended someone the chrome accents on the steering wheel would impale them like a Spartan dispatching a Persian.
Obviously hitting a tree at speed is bad in any car. But an airbag and locking seat-belts are going to improve your chances. Even so, if I had a choice of which car to be in, in a head on collision between a 1974 Camaro and a Smart car. I think I'd take my chances in the Camaro. The recoil from the 5 MPH impact bumper should be enough to launch a compact car into the next timezone.
I like classics too, but I don't have any illusions that they are generally safer or more reliable. I will give you that they are usually easier to fix (assuming they aren't so classic that parts are a problem) but that doesn't make them safer -- and safety was the underlying catalyst for this discussion.
For the most part, modern cars are much safer, except when they get into a collision with an older car. Or a compact hits an SUV. Reliability can be somewhat debatable. The electronics in cars have become very complicated. You've been able to get a points or electronic distributor for a Chevy small block for the last 50+ years, and will have no problem doing so for many decades. Finding an ECM for many cars is becoming questionable long term.
Yes, but I think it was closer to 2002 when I finally did. I usually try to purge accumulated computer stuff every 10 years, give or take. With the exception of a Pentium Pro, I don't have anything older than a P2. But it's going to be time to clean house again soon. Every time I throw something away that isn't at least 10 years old, I end up needing it two weeks after it's gone. Then I have to pay a stupid amount of money to replace something that I had all along.
What part of "Attempt no landing there" don't you people understand?
No kidding. Jupiter has at least 66 other moons we can land on. But of course the only one we want to land on is the one that we're told not to. Of course "the prediction of long vertical blades of ice" in conjunction with the radiation and hazards of the trip itself make us want to go even more. It's kind of like telling a 3 year old "don't touch this".
How old are you? When I got on the internet in 1992 as a 9th grader, the NSA didn't even officially exist, but I knew full well that the NSA was monitoring foreign and domestic network traffic.
I knew the NSA existed and was headquartered at fort a Meade some time around the late 70's to early 80's. It really wasn't much of a secret by then. They just didn't do things to draw attention to themselves. However the culture of deney everything continued well after this. I still remember how humorous the article in the Baltimore Sun was about the NSA museum when it opened in 1992 (or there about). The journalist mentioned how difficult it was to find out where it was. I thought he was joking about it's location until I went there myself. There were no signs anywhere and I had to turn off of the main road onto an unmarked gravel road beside an abandoned gas station and drive a couple hundred yards to the unmarked building with a hummer armed with SAMS out front. The author of the article said he had to speak to over a dozen people go find someone who would confirm the museum even existed, several of those also denied the existence of the NSA as well.
I didn't RTFA, but the price sure makes me believe these were RC model planes and not actually drones. Or is anything that's remote controlled a drone now? Do RC cars count? If I use a wireless keyboard & mouse, my computer should. My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.
The plant doesn't generate solar power, the plant generates electricity.
Are you sure? TFS said it was a first. If the LHC can make a contain a black hole, then a small star should be doable. How else are you going to generate solar power at night.;-)
Actually cave paintings were all drawn by bratty cave-kids. That's why their hands were small. The true prehistoric artist worked in the digital media at the time. It just wasn't as resilient as what kids with crayons were doing back then. And don't get me started on the stone age copyright laws...
It's kind of a relief to know that pretty soon China's economic model will evaporate once 3d printing becomes consumerized.
At least, the part where cheap labor is mercilessly exploited in an inhuman fashion by lazy, worthless douchebags.
I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. While tech advances can make things cheaper in certain markets, it's unlikely it will be cheaper than laborers in under developed countries. Robotic assembly lines are cheaper in the American manufacturing market, it's still not as cheap as human laborers in countries such as China. 3D printing can't print using metal, computer chips, glass, etc. So it will be decades (at least) until electronics can be "printed". It's also unlikely that mass manufacturing even something as simple as plastic figurines could be printed cheaper. Building unique items or prototypes will certainly be cheaper than manual assembly lines, and can be done "in house".
Agreed. Didn't Kodak have its own nuclear reactor until just a few years ago? I could be wrong, but I believe it used plutonium fuel rods. I find it amazing that they had it, but even more so that so few people knew about it until it was shut down.
So what. A nuclear reactor isn't always some big scary thing. Sometimes it's just a few pounds of radioactive material and a pneumatic system for moving samples in and out. There's one across the street from me right now. Big deal. There's at least one in every city that has a hospital, because hospitals use all sorts of short lived products produced in these reactors.
A nuclear reactor is never a scary thing, unless there's a problem. And no, hospitals do not have reactors. In fact there has only ever been one in the US that did. It was in Omaha Nebraska. As far as I recall, it's no longer there. Radioactive tracers are manufactured at a very limited number of places. The Chalk River reactor was one of the few for sometime. It caused a lot of shortages in over the years due to shutdowns over safty concerns. I haven't followed it lately, but there were a lot of countries considering starting up reactors due to the unreliability of Chalk River. So, yes, it is a big deal.
Not only is it an extremely bad comparison but it's absurdly shallow in estimating jobs. Instagram is generating countless jobs by creating a new market niche to be filled.
- New cell phones to make uploading to instagram easier and faster
- New cameras to support communication with cell phones
- New cell phone towers so that photos can be uploaded anywhere
It may take fewer people to do a single job, but that makes the product cheaper and more available. Greater availability increases the need for all related services and products so the jobs just move to new areas. The key lesson is that job mobility is the most important skill to have for the future. All jobs will require computer skills.
While you are correct in regards to companies generating other jobs. However you failed to realize that Kodak did this also. But on a much larger scale than Instagram does.
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but comparing Kodak to Instagram is straight-up retarded. Instagram is not replacing Kodak. It does not do what Kodak used to do with only 13 people. It does almost nothing, and does nothing worthwhile.
Agreed. Didn't Kodak have its own nuclear reactor until just a few years ago? I could be wrong, but I believe it used plutonium fuel rods. I find it amazing that they had it, but even more so that so few people knew about it until it was shut down.
Who knew that The Prisoner would be a template for America less than fifty years later. I just wish my computer and phone would spray drugs at me on occasion. "Be seeing you"
Slashdot Mirror
but it's unfair to creditors if the assets are not sold. what do you think bankruptcy is for? for moving assets to your best buddy?
Like I said, I really oversimplified what I stated. Any time investors put money into a company, there is a risk. So simply holding a bunch of patents wouldn't mitigate the risk as much it does now. Or have patents that are transferable, but have a much shorter term. When someone comes up with something great, they have to choose if they want to be able to sell the patent or not and factor that into the cost of receiving it. I'm not sure if you were being factious regarding using bankruptcy to "your best buddy", but it has been used that way. In large corporations, it's also used to ensure the officers can run the company into the ground with no consequences for them.
the only thing is to make it stricter to get patents, in the way that it has to be something OMFG smart thing to invent one.
I mean, fuck, say you're running a search engine. say you have a database of ads. how much of an invention is it to fetch data from the two databases instead of just one with the word?
Agreed. Patents should not be granted because someone tacks on some new device at the end of and already existing patent, of obvious idea.
I really have to wonder what the people who started the patent system would have thought of this kind of thing. Something tells me this is not what they had in mind. I thought the whole idea was to protect the inventors. If a company goes bankrupt, they really don't need protection, so the patent should go into the public domain. If an individual is granted a patent, they should either have to do something with it in the allotted time, or lose it. Patents were not meant to be used as a way to sue companies as a means of making profit. Nor should massive corporations be able to use them as an Armageddon device against their competitors. I know my post sounds naive and that it's not that simple. But this is just not how the system was intended to work.
But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
You might want to consider that the fellow next to you with his BOSE QC3 headset on and plugged into the aircraft audio system is actually better able to pay attention to what is going on because he is better able to hear any announcements that are made. That's especially true when the plane is taking off and engines are at full noise output.
You might want to consider that in the cases I mentioned, virtually none of them even had the wire that plugs into the aircraft was even attached to the headphones.
They do not do this to 1st class assholes.
an asshat in first class
What is your problem with people who are in first-class? Most of them are only there because they fly so much that they got upgraded to it for free. I don't fly nearly as much as I used to, but still get upgraded on occasion. Frankly people on any kind of electronics is a bigger problem in coach from what I've seen. I couldn't tell you how many times I've been in coach and someone never even bothered to turn off their phone or put it in airplane mode because it starts ringing right after takeoff or while the plane is landing. I've never heard that in business or first class. I always see people in coach putting in their earphones and listening to music as soon as the flight attendants are done walking around. Which is just fucking great if there's an emergency situation. Granted, I also see people wearing their Bose noise canceling headphones in 1st class, but I've also witnessed the attendants telling them to take the off, or at least turn them off almost every time.
Regardless, I agree with you. There needs to be consequences for assholes that do this kind of crap. It's pretty damn pathetic that people can't unplug for more than a few seconds these days. But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
the American public agrees that Wall Street should be moved to Kepler-78b.
We just need some clever marketing and we can get them to go volunteer. It should go something like this:
Tired of those long work hours? Move to Kepler-78b! With it's synergistic proximity to its sun, you can implement an entire year's worth of productivity in just 8.5 hours thereby streamlining your cloud solutions on a quantum scale (exponentially). Who wants to deal with those long brutal winters in NYC? We have nothing but sun. In fact K78b's integration with a self sustaining source of clean energy allows you to dynamically aggregate almost three years of solar convergence in just 24 hours. If you thought you could maximize your initiatives with 365 days a year, just think what the paradigm shift of 1030 years in 365 days will do for your mind share! You'll be able to monetize your solutions beyond the vertical bleeding-edge!
I had a 70s Triumph that was always difficult to get parts for .. even with the many clubs and such that celebrate those cars.
That's because it's statistically impossible to have everything functioning on a Triumph. There's some sort of universal law that if you fix something, something will automatically break on a Triumph or MG. And with so many people trying to keep them functioning, it's impossible to have enough part. I'm kidding, or course. But they are a labor of love for sure. I don't know anyone who has, or had on of these that didn't say the spent more time working on it than driving it. Still the TR7 and especially the TR8 was one hell of a fun car. I think the TR3 with the narrow grille was the best looking though.
Realistically, you are quite a bit more likely to die in your classic car than you are in a new car despite issues like this.
I guess that would depend on how you look at it. If you drive both in the same manner, this is probably true. However most people don't drive their "classic" car to and from work daily. Or in rush hour traffic, bad weather, etc. So realistically, you are less likely to be killed in a classic. Now if you look at the numbers of deaths when those cars were new, the 70's and 80's make those cars look like meat grinders, statistically. But they are "classics" now and not driven in the same manner.
The new car brakes better, handles better, is an order of magnitude safer in a collision thanks to the crumple zones, airbags, and modern collision testing requirements. It also uses less fuel, and pollutes less.
I think it depends on what kind of accident we're are talking about and what cars are involved. I have a theory for why people didn't tail gate as much in the past. Obviously tire and break technology was inferior. But also some of the interior trim in pre-1970 cars could have been used in the Freddy Kruger movies. People realized that if they rear-ended someone the chrome accents on the steering wheel would impale them like a Spartan dispatching a Persian.
Obviously hitting a tree at speed is bad in any car. But an airbag and locking seat-belts are going to improve your chances. Even so, if I had a choice of which car to be in, in a head on collision between a 1974 Camaro and a Smart car. I think I'd take my chances in the Camaro. The recoil from the 5 MPH impact bumper should be enough to launch a compact car into the next timezone.
I like classics too, but I don't have any illusions that they are generally safer or more reliable. I will give you that they are usually easier to fix (assuming they aren't so classic that parts are a problem) but that doesn't make them safer -- and safety was the underlying catalyst for this discussion.
For the most part, modern cars are much safer, except when they get into a collision with an older car. Or a compact hits an SUV. Reliability can be somewhat debatable. The electronics in cars have become very complicated. You've been able to get a points or electronic distributor for a Chevy small block for the last 50+ years, and will have no problem doing so for many decades. Finding an ECM for many cars is becoming questionable long term.
It's just you.
Yes, but I think it was closer to 2002 when I finally did. I usually try to purge accumulated computer stuff every 10 years, give or take. With the exception of a Pentium Pro, I don't have anything older than a P2. But it's going to be time to clean house again soon. Every time I throw something away that isn't at least 10 years old, I end up needing it two weeks after it's gone. Then I have to pay a stupid amount of money to replace something that I had all along.
What part of "Attempt no landing there" don't you people understand?
No kidding. Jupiter has at least 66 other moons we can land on. But of course the only one we want to land on is the one that we're told not to. Of course "the prediction of long vertical blades of ice" in conjunction with the radiation and hazards of the trip itself make us want to go even more. It's kind of like telling a 3 year old "don't touch this".
How old are you? When I got on the internet in 1992 as a 9th grader, the NSA didn't even officially exist, but I knew full well that the NSA was monitoring foreign and domestic network traffic.
I knew the NSA existed and was headquartered at fort a Meade some time around the late 70's to early 80's. It really wasn't much of a secret by then. They just didn't do things to draw attention to themselves. However the culture of deney everything continued well after this. I still remember how humorous the article in the Baltimore Sun was about the NSA museum when it opened in 1992 (or there about). The journalist mentioned how difficult it was to find out where it was. I thought he was joking about it's location until I went there myself. There were no signs anywhere and I had to turn off of the main road onto an unmarked gravel road beside an abandoned gas station and drive a couple hundred yards to the unmarked building with a hummer armed with SAMS out front. The author of the article said he had to speak to over a dozen people go find someone who would confirm the museum even existed, several of those also denied the existence of the NSA as well.
My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.
In that case, my wife would also qualify.
Really? You can control her with a remote? You sir, are my hero.
I didn't RTFA, but the price sure makes me believe these were RC model planes and not actually drones. Or is anything that's remote controlled a drone now? Do RC cars count? If I use a wireless keyboard & mouse, my computer should. My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.
No kidding. Everyone knows that 3D printing is for making gunz. . They have absolutely no other purposes. [/sarcasm]
The plant doesn't generate solar power, the plant generates electricity.
Are you sure? TFS said it was a first. If the LHC can make a contain a black hole, then a small star should be doable. How else are you going to generate solar power at night. ;-)
It's just Glenn now, the last of the Original Seven American astronauts.
"American" is redundant. "Astronaut" implies American. The other men in space in the sixties were "Cosmonauts."
"Human" is also redundant. I don't recall the monkey being referred to as an astronaut either.
Actually cave paintings were all drawn by bratty cave-kids. That's why their hands were small. The true prehistoric artist worked in the digital media at the time. It just wasn't as resilient as what kids with crayons were doing back then. And don't get me started on the stone age copyright laws...
He was 88 and one of the last two surviving astronauts of America's original space program
The summary was correct, just poorly written. He was one of the two surviving.
Misread the article. It's just Glenn now, the last of the Original Seven American astronauts.
FTFY
It's kind of a relief to know that pretty soon China's economic model will evaporate once 3d printing becomes consumerized.
At least, the part where cheap labor is mercilessly exploited in an inhuman fashion by lazy, worthless douchebags.
I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. While tech advances can make things cheaper in certain markets, it's unlikely it will be cheaper than laborers in under developed countries. Robotic assembly lines are cheaper in the American manufacturing market, it's still not as cheap as human laborers in countries such as China. 3D printing can't print using metal, computer chips, glass, etc. So it will be decades (at least) until electronics can be "printed". It's also unlikely that mass manufacturing even something as simple as plastic figurines could be printed cheaper. Building unique items or prototypes will certainly be cheaper than manual assembly lines, and can be done "in house".
"Sometimes, nothin' is a cool hand."
That'll never get seen, AC. What we have here is failure to communacait.
Well... if that's the way he wants it...
Agreed. Didn't Kodak have its own nuclear reactor until just a few years ago? I could be wrong, but I believe it used plutonium fuel rods. I find it amazing that they had it, but even more so that so few people knew about it until it was shut down.
So what. A nuclear reactor isn't always some big scary thing. Sometimes it's just a few pounds of radioactive material and a pneumatic system for moving samples in and out. There's one across the street from me right now. Big deal. There's at least one in every city that has a hospital, because hospitals use all sorts of short lived products produced in these reactors.
A nuclear reactor is never a scary thing, unless there's a problem. And no, hospitals do not have reactors. In fact there has only ever been one in the US that did. It was in Omaha Nebraska. As far as I recall, it's no longer there. Radioactive tracers are manufactured at a very limited number of places. The Chalk River reactor was one of the few for sometime. It caused a lot of shortages in over the years due to shutdowns over safty concerns. I haven't followed it lately, but there were a lot of countries considering starting up reactors due to the unreliability of Chalk River. So, yes, it is a big deal.
Not only is it an extremely bad comparison but it's absurdly shallow in estimating jobs. Instagram is generating countless jobs by creating a new market niche to be filled. - New cell phones to make uploading to instagram easier and faster - New cameras to support communication with cell phones - New cell phone towers so that photos can be uploaded anywhere It may take fewer people to do a single job, but that makes the product cheaper and more available. Greater availability increases the need for all related services and products so the jobs just move to new areas. The key lesson is that job mobility is the most important skill to have for the future. All jobs will require computer skills.
While you are correct in regards to companies generating other jobs. However you failed to realize that Kodak did this also. But on a much larger scale than Instagram does.
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but comparing Kodak to Instagram is straight-up retarded. Instagram is not replacing Kodak. It does not do what Kodak used to do with only 13 people. It does almost nothing, and does nothing worthwhile.
Agreed. Didn't Kodak have its own nuclear reactor until just a few years ago? I could be wrong, but I believe it used plutonium fuel rods. I find it amazing that they had it, but even more so that so few people knew about it until it was shut down.
Who knew that The Prisoner would be a template for America less than fifty years later. I just wish my computer and phone would spray drugs at me on occasion. "Be seeing you"