Hi, I'm Chinese, and I would say that I'm mostly not that horrible. And like most average joe's, I don't know much about human rights. Thanks for the blanket statement, Mr Obese-American-Gun-Nut.:)
Not really sure about the states, but in Canada, this is called "Constructive Dismissal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal , and the employees had the right to be treated as if they were terminated without cause.
When it comes to ideology, I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm not really a materialist, but I play one on TV.:)
You made a claim that by selectively biasing purchasing decisions to goods produced in one's own country, the local economy will receive some form of net benefit.
I disagree. The quality of life of your citizens will be lower than they should be if they just choose products base on price and quality alone.
Now, if you are advocating that one should practice this purchasing bias, DESPITE the known economic consequences to your citizens and local economy, just so that the communist wouldn't get your money, then that's fine, I can respect your opinion.
Aside from the Chinese being a quasi-communist state. What has the Chinese ever done to you? The Chinese had pretty much minded their business for the most part. What has the Chinese ever done to piss the Americans off?
- Why is the Chinese considered to be a "hostile entity"? - The US trades with plenty of "opressive regimes", so who cares?
While the rest of the world is particpating in the free market, producing the products that they are most efficient at producing, consuming the products that are most affordable and of highest quality, and generally increasing their quality of life. You Patriotic American, will continue to expand your buying power to sustain inefficient uncompetitive antiquated American industries, lowering your quality of lifes, and competitive edge.
International trade works because nations have decided that if they are doing something poorly, they should stop doing it. Instead they will expand efforts on doing the things they do well.
You are misguided. If all Americans opt to purchase goods and services base on political ideology rather than market forces, the overall purchasing power of Americans will be less than efficiency. The American quality of life will suffer. If American made goods were just as affordable, and of as high quality as its foreign competitors, you wouldn't have to choose in the first place.
Put it another way, for your dreams of sustaining the American Way Of Life, it's better to buy the most affordable, and highest quality goods possible, and with the money you saved, invest in infrastructure and education, so that American can be more competitive in the international market place.
I don't speak for The Apache Software Foundation, but they are not simply managing the Apache HTTPD anymore. They have become more like a sourceforge like thing, except they are very selective about which projects to take on, and whose projects out of incubation are of exception quality.
Your attack is against patents in general, and I don't disagree with you. But what we are talking about here is software/mathematics (non-traditional touchable, seeable, engineering), and how patents apply to this field of study.
I'm talking about algorithms that performs non-trival useful tasks. I'm NOT talking about the theorems/lemmas/etc.
Quicksort ought to be patentable, sorting numbers should not. Algorithms for solving Linear Programs ought to be patentable, duals should not. RSA ought to be patentable, public key crypto should not.
In order for something to be patentable, it has perform a useful task.
To address your point about implementation vs algorithm, in software and mathematics, the implementation is often trivial (hence not deserving of a patent). The real innovation happens in the algorithm.
Perhaps patents is a thing of the past, but I still wish to reward innovation to inventors of complex non-trivial algorithms which advance the state of the art. And patents are the closest thing we have.
Good bye karma, this post SUPPORTS patenting mathematics and software. Moderators, please read full post before moderating...
I disagree. Many non-trivial and ingenious algorithms in math ought to be as patentable as other fields. Developing an algorithm to perform a useful task, or significantly improving an existing algorithm to perform a useful task, is no different than other fields. It requires time, resources, effort, and ingeniouty.
The thing that I object to is the blanket patent period of 17 years that apply uniformly to all patents. The situation does not call for a one size fill all solution. The period of 17 years was probably decided a long time ago, and did not envision how rapidly the world had evolved. Even for other fields of engineering, 17 years may not always to be the most appropriate amount of time.
In the computing world, 17 years is WAY too long. That's the equivalent of probably 5 or 6 revolutions in technologies. If patents for mathematics and computing was limited to say 2 or 3 years, then I can fully support it.
yahoo used to have free pop3. But they took that away when they realized they had no competition. Mark my words: Gmail will charge for pop3 in the near future.
yeah, me too. But what kind of a sociopathic marker would think that n could be anything but integers? n can only represent integral values, it's blasphemy to think otherwise!!!
Vendor lock-in. In the MSFT world, the only game in time for App Server is Microsoft. In the Java world, there are quite a few industrial strength app servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I'm Chinese, and I would say that I'm mostly not that horrible. And like most average joe's, I don't know much about human rights. Thanks for the blanket statement, Mr Obese-American-Gun-Nut. :)
Not really sure about the states, but in Canada, this is called "Constructive Dismissal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal , and the employees had the right to be treated as if they were terminated without cause.
Sweden was ranked #6 in the 2006 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. Perhaps they wouldn't do so well next year.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
"We don't censor." - China
In response to your comments about how the internet is ran by the un-deomcratic Chinese:
ICANN
Good day.
Mine got blocked. :(
I confirm with OP, go away AC.
I use 'screen' the terminal multiplexor.
http://www.gnu.org/software/screen/
that way, I can quickly go from file navigation, script writing, compilation, and web surfing, all from within the same xterm.
Come on now. If I had mod points, I'd mod you flamebait. :-)
When it comes to ideology, I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm not really a materialist, but I play one on TV. :)
You made a claim that by selectively biasing purchasing decisions to goods produced in one's own country, the local economy will receive some form of net benefit.
I disagree. The quality of life of your citizens will be lower than they should be if they just choose products base on price and quality alone.
Now, if you are advocating that one should practice this purchasing bias, DESPITE the known economic consequences to your citizens and local economy, just so that the communist wouldn't get your money, then that's fine, I can respect your opinion.
Aside from the Chinese being a quasi-communist state. What has the Chinese ever done to you? The Chinese had pretty much minded their business for the most part. What has the Chinese ever done to piss the Americans off?
- Why is the Chinese considered to be a "hostile entity"?
- The US trades with plenty of "opressive regimes", so who cares?
While the rest of the world is particpating in the free market, producing the products that they are most efficient at producing, consuming the products that are most affordable and of highest quality, and generally increasing their quality of life. You Patriotic American, will continue to expand your buying power to sustain inefficient uncompetitive antiquated American industries, lowering your quality of lifes, and competitive edge.
International trade works because nations have decided that if they are doing something poorly, they should stop doing it. Instead they will expand efforts on doing the things they do well.
You are misguided. If all Americans opt to purchase goods and services base on political ideology rather than market forces, the overall purchasing power of Americans will be less than efficiency. The American quality of life will suffer. If American made goods were just as affordable, and of as high quality as its foreign competitors, you wouldn't have to choose in the first place.
Put it another way, for your dreams of sustaining the American Way Of Life, it's better to buy the most affordable, and highest quality goods possible, and with the money you saved, invest in infrastructure and education, so that American can be more competitive in the international market place.
That sounds so much like Jihad.
I don't speak for The Apache Software Foundation, but they are not simply managing the Apache HTTPD anymore. They have become more like a sourceforge like thing, except they are very selective about which projects to take on, and whose projects out of incubation are of exception quality.
That, or eliminate taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Pick one.
Your attack is against patents in general, and I don't disagree with you. But what we are talking about here is software/mathematics (non-traditional touchable, seeable, engineering), and how patents apply to this field of study.
I'm talking about algorithms that performs non-trival useful tasks. I'm NOT talking about the theorems/lemmas/etc.
Quicksort ought to be patentable, sorting numbers should not.
Algorithms for solving Linear Programs ought to be patentable, duals should not.
RSA ought to be patentable, public key crypto should not.
In order for something to be patentable, it has perform a useful task.
To address your point about implementation vs algorithm, in software and mathematics, the implementation is often trivial (hence not deserving of a patent). The real innovation happens in the algorithm.
Perhaps patents is a thing of the past, but I still wish to reward innovation to inventors of complex non-trivial algorithms which advance the state of the art. And patents are the closest thing we have.
Good bye karma, this post SUPPORTS patenting mathematics and software. Moderators, please read full post before moderating ...
I disagree. Many non-trivial and ingenious algorithms in math ought to be as patentable as other fields. Developing an algorithm to perform a useful task, or significantly improving an existing algorithm to perform a useful task, is no different than other fields. It requires time, resources, effort, and ingeniouty.
The thing that I object to is the blanket patent period of 17 years that apply uniformly to all patents. The situation does not call for a one size fill all solution. The period of 17 years was probably decided a long time ago, and did not envision how rapidly the world had evolved. Even for other fields of engineering, 17 years may not always to be the most appropriate amount of time.
In the computing world, 17 years is WAY too long. That's the equivalent of probably 5 or 6 revolutions in technologies. If patents for mathematics and computing was limited to say 2 or 3 years, then I can fully support it.
Canada is a lot higher north than US too. So we spend more energy on heating. (I guess we also spend less on A/C. I guess I don't really have a point)
Yes, it may still be habitable for life, but nature doesn't care if it's human life that survives.
yahoo used to have free pop3. But they took that away when they realized they had no competition. Mark my words: Gmail will charge for pop3 in the near future.
yeah, me too. But what kind of a sociopathic marker would think that n could be anything but integers? n can only represent integral values, it's blasphemy to think otherwise!!!
Vendor lock-in. In the MSFT world, the only game in time for App Server is Microsoft. In the Java world, there are quite a few industrial strength app servers.
with that kind of cash.