FYI - I read the same article several months ago, but that does not invalidate my point. You can't miss something that big - a mere 2 years ago, and still be as credible about the hype that had been spewing as fact beforehand.
And yes I do have an agenda. To protect my freedom from idiots who want the government to microregulate every last aspect of my life in the name of "global warming". Get real, Al Gore doens't give a flying fuck about the environment.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
The #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but methane - which reflects back far more heat and exists in far greater amounts, and the #1 emmitter of methane is not humans, but plants by an order of magnitude. The fact that scientists didn't even know that most plants emit methane a mere two years ago makes the case even stronger that the "global warming" movement is filled with idiots that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, all the recent over-hype about "global warming" is precicely because compelling evidence is starting to show that it is not mostly man made, meaning that those whom had insincere motives for promoting the "global warming" agenda are in a real rush to push their regulations.
One more thing. If a polluting inefficient electric generating coal plant that cost a billion dollars to build faces competition from a cheap clean efficient high-tech competitor - how do they stop them? You guessed it, buy up all the CO2 credits and lock the competitor out.
Funny thing is, none of those services you mentioned are paid for with income taxes, and all of those services - we are forced to pay for even when the government does a shoddy job - which they do. Especially in California. The bottom line is that people don't "owe" government for the opportunities they have, those happen in spite of government, not because of it.
Because the taxes that cash-rich google doesn't pay are paid for by the rest of us.
This is a double logical fallacy, and a red herring. First, you are presuming that the government isn't already trying to get the maximum amount of taxes from us anyhow. Second, you are presuming that the government would actually spend that money to our benefit. Finally, "cash rich", is a red herring. The government never has taxed net-worth and never will, they tax income. That means that the business man who busts his ass to create 20 jobs and earn a million bucks will get his balls ripped off while the person sitting on a 10 billion dollar stockpile of cash will never notice at all no matter how high the tax rate is. People whose battle cry is "tax the rich" are stupid, and are killing opportunities for themselves more than anyone else.
Agreed, it's not like the government earned this money. It's not like the government took personal risks to invest it, build infrastructure, and provided extremely popular search services for everyone to use freely. And would we even want them to? What if Google was a Bahamas startup and not a Silicon Valley startup, would we all now be happy that those "evil" Silicon Valley "tax cheats" don't exist anymore? Even if Google did "cheat", it's not as if that took anything from you or I. The government is already trying to tax the maximum from us anyhow! The government is already wasting 75% of the money on non-productive activities anyhow.! My faith in Google to use that money to do something beneficial to society is far more than my faith in the governments abilities.
The Congress shall have Power to......promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I'm glad you mentioned that, the constitution doesn't give rights. It is only worth anything because it acknowledges some that we already have. Say, what kinds of rights have an expiration date anyhow? The fact that they do have an expiration date is an implicit acknowledgment that they aren't really a right. Also, copyrights are old, but not that old - most the entire Renaissance happened without them. There goes the argument that they propote creative expression. BTW, the constitution was presumed to "protect" slaves as a "property" too. Well bullshit, intellectual "property" is not property. Any 3yr old can tell you that they are nothing like regular property. The emperor is naked, get with the information age.
Get rid of the stupid number, and the ponzi retirement scheme that comes with it. It may make it harder for the government to track my finances, well boo hoo hoo I think I'm going to cry.
If the government want's to stop bullying, they should shut themselves down. It is bad enough that they are such a bully around the world, but at home is unforgivible. The suspension of Habius Corpus, that's bullying. No knock warrants and random searches, that is bullying. Compulsitory education, that's bullying. The IRS, that's bullying. The "war on drugs", that's bullying. All the frivilous tickets they give out, that's bullying. Looser pays lawsuits, that's bullying. And they help a lot of other bullies, like the copyright and patent lawsuit cartels. Yeah, of course everyones acting like a bully. We have such a fine example.
First off, when the Brits invaded the US, the one reason why they didn't win was because people had guns. When the Civil War ended, the main reason why there was a ruch to reconcile was because the citizens had a lot of guns. During the cold war, the main reason why any ground invasion stratigies were shelved by the USSR was because the people have guns. You don't know what you're talking about, or why the right to bear arms is even acknowledged. Gun rights are human rights, and the need for them has nothing to do with hunting, but power and control and whose entitled to have it in a free society.
Second off, "If using a different kind of lightbulb, taking public transit, driving a more fuel efficient car (when necessary), buying energy efficient appliances..." There are market forces that encourage these anyhow, including all sorts of other efficient technologies. If you come up with a more efficient energy generating technology, just try using it in a world where "carbon credits" are locked up. Where are you going to get them from, competitors? Duh. You are lying because you are presuming that we need force, you are lying because you are presuming that the force will achieve the desired goal, and you are lying by presuming that the problem is more urgent than it really is, and you are lying because you are presuming that giving governments that kind of control will be less harmfull than it really is. Yes, the fact that your lies are so off base is... an inconvient truth:)
Word has it that it is melting away under a nearly infinite number of microregulations on every aspect of free individual life in the name of potential environmental disaster 100 years out. Sadly while environmental disasters are mostly theory, government disasters are not and have a track record of 100's of millions murdered, and that doesn't even include war.
Thank you, and thank God somebody said that. The patent system has never worked, not even in the age of steam engines, where better designs were held back over a decade. Not even in the industrial era where patents became such a mess, they had to make "interface" patents illegal to keep the whole factory system from falling apart. Not even with Edison, the later years of his life wasting away on patent lawsuits. One of the engineers who created CDMA nearly quit electronics in disgust because of patents (even though they made him a millionaire). Not even when they last reformed them by creating a patent court, which made the problem worse because now they gained legitimacy by empowering patents. Patents with AIDS drugs are murderous, it is outrageous that African nations were sued in the world court not to use Indian made generics while over a million people died. It is outrageous that air-bags and anti-lock breaks were held back 20 years. HEY! 40,000 people die per year in auto accidents in the US alone. Patents are probably responsible for the murder of more US citizens than WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the war on terror combined. Clinging to patents like this is not rational behavior, it's like those people who saw all the evil of the slave plantation system and said "well, it only needs reform". Another fradulent property right - how ironic.
Just how many people are we willing to murder for the sake of patents anyhow. Don't answer that question lightly, because it will probably come true.
The problem with Java was not an implementation or technology one. All first generation implementations are flakey (think Mosaic). The problem was that Sun controled it too much, so it was pre-destined to never become ubiquitous. If they GPL'd it from the get go, it would have been a shoe-in, game over, touchdown, and go home. Now they have, but by now it's probably a day late and a dollar short.
People still can't wake up and smell the Hummis. The debate never has been about the direction of technology, but about the direction of freedom and liberty. The saying "the stone rejected by the builders has become the corner stone" has never been more true. People go on and on about how this feature matters, or that GUI, or such and such technology, ease of immediate use, or this and that driver/optimisation, consumer/corporate adoption, or DRM - and they still gon't get it. When people have the freedom to copy and modify without being punished and fenced off, those things will come naturally and more, when they don't then it does not matter how nice it is - it will eventually be overtaken and become obsolete. Free markets are not about technology or markets, but about freedom and people using it to create wealth and opportunity where it hasn't existed before. If that doesn't define the free software movement, then I don't know what does.
Dude, my gold went up 23% last year and sliver went up 40% inspite of a huge dip in the middle of the year. Gold was $250 in 2001, and is now $650. That's pretty damn good for an investment that doesn't do anything. It beat the crap out of stocks, bonds, and housing. I didn't even need to trade in and out, I just had to sit on my ass and do nothing. If the USD is loosing value that fast, then only an idiot would not have gold. Sure, when the US reduces debt and spending, it might then be a nice time to get back into a dollar based real investment. However, just as I said. The Fed isn't able to lie to people about the value of their money anymore, and gold is remonitizing. Renember the gold top of $830/oz in 1980, that's $2000/oz in todays money - but the fundamentals today are worse. Renember how they had to raise interest rates to 21% to get people back into dollars? If they do that today, the entire world economy will be ripped to shreads, beaten the crap out of, and left for dead. Only an idiot would not own gold today.
...All the fed does is set a price for new money put into the system...
Well, when you put NEW money into the system, that tends to water down the value of existing money holders. They were paid money at a certain value, now that value is less later on. They were decieved, lied to, tricked, whatever....
Amazing, how you can use so many words and not actually say anything.
Do I need to spell it out? The value of the dollar is being watered down, but the copyright cartel will not be able to raise prices to compensate.
...Controlling Information is still the best way to make immediate wealth....
Linux, p2p, the price of gold (vs the dollar), you had better not ignore these lest you get your ass kicked.
It is the ultimate irony. The record industry is trying control information in the form of content, and the US Federal Reserve Bank is trying to control information that refelcts itself in the form of money and markets. So now the Fed is lying to us about the value of our money, and long behold it has the effect of destroying the pricing power for those who are lying to us about "protecting" artists, and branding about other lies such as saying copyrights are "property" rather than a personal regulatory monopoly.
Well, guess what. As society enters the information age, that means that information is becomming commoditized and the service value of information starts to exceed the control value. So liars who control information like Hollywood and the Fed (and Microsoft) are in serious trouble. How ironoc it is that, unlike the service sector, they will have no pricing power as they destroy each other.
Good programming is a boundaries problem
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
One thing I've noticed about companies is that they try to treat programmers like factory workers. Expect each one to be interchangeable and jump in anywhere on the "assembly line" at any place at any time for any piece of code. However, programming takes understanding, and complex programming takes complex understanding. Even a good programmer fixing a bug may need to analyze surrounding code for several hours before changing a single line. Unlike most engineering projects that are completed and done, most programming is a living growing process that is constantly changed modified and improved.
That implies that there is a need for specialisation and clear boundries, to assign "ownership" or "territory" over certain parts of code. A programmer who understands it and gets the last say on how it's changed and have clear non-arbitrary rules for changing that "territory". Like in open source projects. If you want a kernel fix, you submit it to the proper maintainers, or make your own fork, but no corporate bureaucrat comes along and micromanage how the code is merged and managed.
It simply amazes me that global warmers seem to take environmental catastrophe to it's logical conclusion with an almost perfect certainly. But when it comes to bringing government micro-regulation of peoples lives to it's logical conclusion, they are oblivious and stupid. The abuse and extremes of government have already happened, are well documented, and have over 200 million confirmed deaths attributed to their name. But the abuse of environment is theoretical, few if none confirmed deaths, and is 100 years off into the future at best. Cuba has a wonderful pristine environment, but does anyone want to live there? What about Cambodia's, Po Pot's return to nature campaign where two million people were genocided. Say, if the end in itself is protection of the environment, then just how many people are will willing to genocide to save an acre of rain forest anyhow? I can prove with absolute certainty that the enviromental movement is full of shit. Why? Not from the alleded "data", but because their only solution is massive government interference of peoples lives. Checkmate. Proof closed.
THE US HAS NO ENERGY SHORTAGE. Today the US has a 400-800 year supply of coal. That could free us from the middle east, fuel all our cars, and free us from geopolitical disaster. So do we encourage it's use, no, we try to regulate the shit out of it and drive up costs thru the roof (just like with nuclear power). The energy problem is not a resource one, but a political one. The enviromental problem is not a enviroment problem, but a government one.
I agree. His voting record is honest and consistent for decades, there is no doubt at all that individual privacy would increase under his term. One more thing, why is is that when Hillary talks about privacy, I don't think she means privacy from the government, the IRS, the DEA, and so on. Also, did Reno respect the privacy of Elian from Cuba. Did the ATF respect the privacy of the branch davidians. What about the FBI files found in Clintons office.
Yeah, most information was lost because of a few library repositories of concentrated information that got burnt down. Centralized repositories like the patent office. And yes copyrights and patents are completely different and patents are more expensive. Which means that the need to spread costs between all industries is greater than ever before, that the need to collaberation more. Which means that the harm and violence caused by patent is far greater than with copyright.
So, now answer me this question: if R&D is (very) expensive, and everyone is free to rip the results, why should I do research in the first place? It just doesn't pay off!
Sure, if you tell me how the plantation masters will afford to farm cotton without their negros. What's the matter, don't you believe in property, don't you believe in incentive, don't you believe in the great wealth and propserity of Amercian commerce. Sure if you tell me why Ford would spend a billion to build a car factory even though GM could too. Sure, if you could tell me why IBM made IBM compatable PC's even though Compaq and AMD could make chip compatable replacements. Actually, IBM and Intell sued for billions over that and lost badly in the courts. So did the PC industry flop? no it boomed, no, in fact after that the IBM compatable PC took over the marketplace and there was a nuclear explosion in R&D, along with a nuclear explosion in business and commerce.
Also, your comment about Africa shows that you simply didnt read what I said. Again: I AM ALL FOR FAIR USE CLAUSES. Africa should have gotten a permission in the first place.
Sure I did, you didn't read what I said. The negros shouldn't need their "kind masters" permission to exercise freedom.
No you don't get it. Invention and creation have happened 2000 years before patent, and will continue for long after they're dead too. Did the free copy nature of the internet cause people to hide all their knowledge and publication? No it caused a nuclear explosion of knowledge. You don't know what you're taking about. Patents force the market to be centered around invention controls instead of invention services. Wonderfull, an inventor can get a patent, but in turn gets locked out from free use of ten million other inventions for 20 years. As if none would be known otherwise. Bullshit!
The only problem with Africa is that you seem unable to take patents to their logical conclusion. BTW, after enough people died the problem in Africa was addressed. Your tax money bought the AIDS drugs at full retail, and they were given to the African countries for free. I guess the American masters are kind to their negros huh? Anything's better than freedom to act on their own, huh?
"Without patents there would be no AIDS drugs for Africa OR the first world. "
Prove it. Since you're the one that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy, the burden of proof is on you to show that wouldn't have been developed without such a monopoly.
"Not many people are willing to put up 500 million dollars without getting any advantage over the competition."
Of course if their advatage kills collaberation, that drives the price up to 500 million
Slashdot Mirror
This is bullshit.
I say we should boycott Verizon and refuse to pay any outstanding verizon bills till they back off.
FYI - I read the same article several months ago, but that does not invalidate my point. You can't miss something that big - a mere 2 years ago, and still be as credible about the hype that had been spewing as fact beforehand.
And yes I do have an agenda. To protect my freedom from idiots who want the government to microregulate every last aspect of my life in the name of "global warming". Get real, Al Gore doens't give a flying fuck about the environment.
The #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but methane - which reflects back far more heat and exists in far greater amounts, and the #1 emmitter of methane is not humans, but plants by an order of magnitude. The fact that scientists didn't even know that most plants emit methane a mere two years ago makes the case even stronger that the "global warming" movement is filled with idiots that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, all the recent over-hype about "global warming" is precicely because compelling evidence is starting to show that it is not mostly man made, meaning that those whom had insincere motives for promoting the "global warming" agenda are in a real rush to push their regulations.
One more thing. If a polluting inefficient electric generating coal plant that cost a billion dollars to build faces competition from a cheap clean efficient high-tech competitor - how do they stop them? You guessed it, buy up all the CO2 credits and lock the competitor out.
Funny thing is, none of those services you mentioned are paid for with income taxes, and all of those services - we are forced to pay for even when the government does a shoddy job - which they do. Especially in California. The bottom line is that people don't "owe" government for the opportunities they have, those happen in spite of government, not because of it.
This is a double logical fallacy, and a red herring. First, you are presuming that the government isn't already trying to get the maximum amount of taxes from us anyhow. Second, you are presuming that the government would actually spend that money to our benefit. Finally, "cash rich", is a red herring. The government never has taxed net-worth and never will, they tax income. That means that the business man who busts his ass to create 20 jobs and earn a million bucks will get his balls ripped off while the person sitting on a 10 billion dollar stockpile of cash will never notice at all no matter how high the tax rate is. People whose battle cry is "tax the rich" are stupid, and are killing opportunities for themselves more than anyone else.
Agreed, it's not like the government earned this money. It's not like the government took personal risks to invest it, build infrastructure, and provided extremely popular search services for everyone to use freely. And would we even want them to? What if Google was a Bahamas startup and not a Silicon Valley startup, would we all now be happy that those "evil" Silicon Valley "tax cheats" don't exist anymore? Even if Google did "cheat", it's not as if that took anything from you or I. The government is already trying to tax the maximum from us anyhow! The government is already wasting 75% of the money on non-productive activities anyhow.! My faith in Google to use that money to do something beneficial to society is far more than my faith in the governments abilities.
I'm glad you mentioned that, the constitution doesn't give rights. It is only worth anything because it acknowledges some that we already have. Say, what kinds of rights have an expiration date anyhow? The fact that they do have an expiration date is an implicit acknowledgment that they aren't really a right. Also, copyrights are old, but not that old - most the entire Renaissance happened without them. There goes the argument that they propote creative expression. BTW, the constitution was presumed to "protect" slaves as a "property" too. Well bullshit, intellectual "property" is not property. Any 3yr old can tell you that they are nothing like regular property. The emperor is naked, get with the information age.
Actually, I think theirs is the illegitamate usage of bit-torrent. Copyrights are not a legitimate property right.
Get rid of the stupid number, and the ponzi retirement scheme that comes with it. It may make it harder for the government to track my finances, well boo hoo hoo I think I'm going to cry.
If the government want's to stop bullying, they should shut themselves down. It is bad enough that they are such a bully around the world, but at home is unforgivible. The suspension of Habius Corpus, that's bullying. No knock warrants and random searches, that is bullying. Compulsitory education, that's bullying. The IRS, that's bullying. The "war on drugs", that's bullying. All the frivilous tickets they give out, that's bullying. Looser pays lawsuits, that's bullying. And they help a lot of other bullies, like the copyright and patent lawsuit cartels. Yeah, of course everyones acting like a bully. We have such a fine example.
First off, when the Brits invaded the US, the one reason why they didn't win was because people had guns. When the Civil War ended, the main reason why there was a ruch to reconcile was because the citizens had a lot of guns. During the cold war, the main reason why any ground invasion stratigies were shelved by the USSR was because the people have guns. You don't know what you're talking about, or why the right to bear arms is even acknowledged. Gun rights are human rights, and the need for them has nothing to do with hunting, but power and control and whose entitled to have it in a free society.
... an inconvient truth :)
Second off, "If using a different kind of lightbulb, taking public transit, driving a more fuel efficient car (when necessary), buying energy efficient appliances..." There are market forces that encourage these anyhow, including all sorts of other efficient technologies. If you come up with a more efficient energy generating technology, just try using it in a world where "carbon credits" are locked up. Where are you going to get them from, competitors? Duh. You are lying because you are presuming that we need force, you are lying because you are presuming that the force will achieve the desired goal, and you are lying by presuming that the problem is more urgent than it really is, and you are lying because you are presuming that giving governments that kind of control will be less harmfull than it really is. Yes, the fact that your lies are so off base is
Word has it that it is melting away under a nearly infinite number of microregulations on every aspect of free individual life in the name of potential environmental disaster 100 years out. Sadly while environmental disasters are mostly theory, government disasters are not and have a track record of 100's of millions murdered, and that doesn't even include war.
Thank you, and thank God somebody said that. The patent system has never worked, not even in the age of steam engines, where better designs were held back over a decade. Not even in the industrial era where patents became such a mess, they had to make "interface" patents illegal to keep the whole factory system from falling apart. Not even with Edison, the later years of his life wasting away on patent lawsuits. One of the engineers who created CDMA nearly quit electronics in disgust because of patents (even though they made him a millionaire). Not even when they last reformed them by creating a patent court, which made the problem worse because now they gained legitimacy by empowering patents. Patents with AIDS drugs are murderous, it is outrageous that African nations were sued in the world court not to use Indian made generics while over a million people died. It is outrageous that air-bags and anti-lock breaks were held back 20 years. HEY! 40,000 people die per year in auto accidents in the US alone. Patents are probably responsible for the murder of more US citizens than WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the war on terror combined. Clinging to patents like this is not rational behavior, it's like those people who saw all the evil of the slave plantation system and said "well, it only needs reform". Another fradulent property right - how ironic.
Just how many people are we willing to murder for the sake of patents anyhow. Don't answer that question lightly, because it will probably come true.
The problem with Java was not an implementation or technology one. All first generation implementations are flakey (think Mosaic). The problem was that Sun controled it too much, so it was pre-destined to never become ubiquitous. If they GPL'd it from the get go, it would have been a shoe-in, game over, touchdown, and go home. Now they have, but by now it's probably a day late and a dollar short.
People still can't wake up and smell the Hummis. The debate never has been about the direction of technology, but about the direction of freedom and liberty. The saying "the stone rejected by the builders has become the corner stone" has never been more true. People go on and on about how this feature matters, or that GUI, or such and such technology, ease of immediate use, or this and that driver/optimisation, consumer/corporate adoption, or DRM - and they still gon't get it. When people have the freedom to copy and modify without being punished and fenced off, those things will come naturally and more, when they don't then it does not matter how nice it is - it will eventually be overtaken and become obsolete. Free markets are not about technology or markets, but about freedom and people using it to create wealth and opportunity where it hasn't existed before. If that doesn't define the free software movement, then I don't know what does.
Dude, my gold went up 23% last year and sliver went up 40% inspite of a huge dip in the middle of the year. Gold was $250 in 2001, and is now $650. That's pretty damn good for an investment that doesn't do anything. It beat the crap out of stocks, bonds, and housing. I didn't even need to trade in and out, I just had to sit on my ass and do nothing. If the USD is loosing value that fast, then only an idiot would not have gold. Sure, when the US reduces debt and spending, it might then be a nice time to get back into a dollar based real investment. However, just as I said. The Fed isn't able to lie to people about the value of their money anymore, and gold is remonitizing. Renember the gold top of $830/oz in 1980, that's $2000/oz in todays money - but the fundamentals today are worse. Renember how they had to raise interest rates to 21% to get people back into dollars? If they do that today, the entire world economy will be ripped to shreads, beaten the crap out of, and left for dead. Only an idiot would not own gold today.
Well, when you put NEW money into the system, that tends to water down the value of existing money holders. They were paid money at a certain value, now that value is less later on. They were decieved, lied to, tricked, whatever....
Do I need to spell it out? The value of the dollar is being watered down, but the copyright cartel will not be able to raise prices to compensate.
Linux, p2p, the price of gold (vs the dollar), you had better not ignore these lest you get your ass kicked.
It is the ultimate irony. The record industry is trying control information in the form of content, and the US Federal Reserve Bank is trying to control information that refelcts itself in the form of money and markets. So now the Fed is lying to us about the value of our money, and long behold it has the effect of destroying the pricing power for those who are lying to us about "protecting" artists, and branding about other lies such as saying copyrights are "property" rather than a personal regulatory monopoly.
Well, guess what. As society enters the information age, that means that information is becomming commoditized and the service value of information starts to exceed the control value. So liars who control information like Hollywood and the Fed (and Microsoft) are in serious trouble. How ironoc it is that, unlike the service sector, they will have no pricing power as they destroy each other.
One thing I've noticed about companies is that they try to treat programmers like factory workers. Expect each one to be interchangeable and jump in anywhere on the "assembly line" at any place at any time for any piece of code. However, programming takes understanding, and complex programming takes complex understanding. Even a good programmer fixing a bug may need to analyze surrounding code for several hours before changing a single line.
Unlike most engineering projects that are completed and done, most programming is a living growing process that is constantly changed modified and improved.
That implies that there is a need for specialisation and clear boundries, to assign "ownership" or "territory" over certain parts of code. A programmer who understands it and gets the last say on how it's changed and have clear non-arbitrary rules for changing that "territory". Like in open source projects. If you want a kernel fix, you submit it to the proper maintainers, or make your own fork, but no corporate bureaucrat comes along and micromanage how the code is merged and managed.
It simply amazes me that global warmers seem to take environmental catastrophe to it's logical conclusion with an almost perfect certainly. But when it comes to bringing government micro-regulation of peoples lives to it's logical conclusion, they are oblivious and stupid. The abuse and extremes of government have already happened, are well documented, and have over 200 million confirmed deaths attributed to their name. But the abuse of environment is theoretical, few if none confirmed deaths, and is 100 years off into the future at best. Cuba has a wonderful pristine environment, but does anyone want to live there? What about Cambodia's, Po Pot's return to nature campaign where two million people were genocided. Say, if the end in itself is protection of the environment, then just how many people are will willing to genocide to save an acre of rain forest anyhow? I can prove with absolute certainty that the enviromental movement is full of shit. Why? Not from the alleded "data", but because their only solution is massive government interference of peoples lives. Checkmate. Proof closed.
THE US HAS NO ENERGY SHORTAGE. Today the US has a 400-800 year supply of coal. That could free us from the middle east, fuel all our cars, and free us from geopolitical disaster. So do we encourage it's use, no, we try to regulate the shit out of it and drive up costs thru the roof (just like with nuclear power). The energy problem is not a resource one, but a political one. The enviromental problem is not a enviroment problem, but a government one.
I agree. His voting record is honest and consistent for decades, there is no doubt at all that individual privacy would increase under his term. One more thing, why is is that when Hillary talks about privacy, I don't think she means privacy from the government, the IRS, the DEA, and so on. Also, did Reno respect the privacy of Elian from Cuba. Did the ATF respect the privacy of the branch davidians. What about the FBI files found in Clintons office.
Yeah, most information was lost because of a few library repositories of concentrated information that got burnt down. Centralized repositories like the patent office. And yes copyrights and patents are completely different and patents are more expensive. Which means that the need to spread costs between all industries is greater than ever before, that the need to collaberation more. Which means that the harm and violence caused by patent is far greater than with copyright.
Sure, if you tell me how the plantation masters will afford to farm cotton without their negros. What's the matter, don't you believe in property, don't you believe in incentive, don't you believe in the great wealth and propserity of Amercian commerce. Sure if you tell me why Ford would spend a billion to build a car factory even though GM could too. Sure, if you could tell me why IBM made IBM compatable PC's even though Compaq and AMD could make chip compatable replacements. Actually, IBM and Intell sued for billions over that and lost badly in the courts. So did the PC industry flop? no it boomed, no, in fact after that the IBM compatable PC took over the marketplace and there was a nuclear explosion in R&D, along with a nuclear explosion in business and commerce.
Sure I did, you didn't read what I said. The negros shouldn't need their "kind masters" permission to exercise freedom.
No you don't get it. Invention and creation have happened 2000 years before patent, and will continue for long after they're dead too. Did the free copy nature of the internet cause people to hide all their knowledge and publication? No it caused a nuclear explosion of knowledge. You don't know what you're taking about. Patents force the market to be centered around invention controls instead of invention services. Wonderfull, an inventor can get a patent, but in turn gets locked out from free use of ten million other inventions for 20 years. As if none would be known otherwise. Bullshit!
The only problem with Africa is that you seem unable to take patents to their logical conclusion. BTW, after enough people died the problem in Africa was addressed. Your tax money bought the AIDS drugs at full retail, and they were given to the African countries for free. I guess the American masters are kind to their negros huh? Anything's better than freedom to act on their own, huh?
"Without patents there would be no AIDS drugs for Africa OR the first world. "
Prove it. Since you're the one that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy, the burden of proof is on you to show that wouldn't have been developed without such a monopoly.
"Not many people are willing to put up 500 million dollars without getting any advantage over the competition."
Of course if their advatage kills collaberation, that drives the price up to 500 million