Still not sure a 20yr monopoly is the best method, but so far have seen very few viable alternatives presented that serve both the benefactors and benefactees.
It's called public funding - scientific progress is a public good. As for the 20yr monopolies, those are supposed to cover inventions, not scientific discoveries.
Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing for 30 years, now if anyone's premium goes up a dollar that's because of Obamacare?
No, but Obamacare does amazingly little to control costs. Obama started by giving pharma and med insurance companies what they wanted. There's a reason why the insurance stocks went up after it passed - what company has a problem with guaranteed customers? A public option would have given them a run for their money, and with pharma the collective bargaining power of 308M people could do something about prices. Some of the cost containment claimed is absurd. It limits the medical loss ratio, to a lower ratio (more for the insurance companies) than what they have now! And the pre-Obamacare MLR is lower than what they had ten years ago. I've believed in universal health care for decades, but I'm not sure we can afford Obama and congress kissing corporate butt like this.
That statement, that news shouldn't be published until "all the facts" are known is ludicrous. I'm no conspiracy nut, but we still don't have "all the facts" on the JFK assassination. But it would be silly to have ignored it, and just started referring to President Johnson one day.
The JFK assassination? We still don't have all the facts on the Revolution!
The Progressive Era and the New Deal... essentially reversing the assumption from "Congress may only make laws about things the Constitution explicitly allows" to "Congress may make laws about anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid."
You're off by at least a hundred years. The precedent that "strict constructionists" overlook is the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Tom Jefferson and Jimmy Madison, ironically the original strict constructionists, tossed their own principle in the trash because they decided that buying that land (a power obviously not explicitly granted by the Constitution) was more important. Congress agreed when they forked over the money for it. RIP strict constructionism.
BTW, strict constructionism was never a clearly established principle, just one interpretation of the Constitution. Other Founding Fathers, including some that had been at the Constitutional Convention like Washington and Hamilton, never agreed with it.
Your rights in this regard are completely intact. You seem to think that emails, phone logs, and all manner of web data are "papers and effects", whereas no US court has ever held such a thing.
I have no doubt that if phones and the Internet had existed in 1789, they would have been covered by the 4th. Forgive the 1st congress for not fully anticipating 200+ years of technological change.
The explicit exception to this is phone calls, and these are only protected on account of the quasi-state status of telephone networks as "Common Carriers."
Bull. Wiretaps require a warrant only because the Supreme Court decided that they do, instead of, as they do today, shredding the Bill of Rights by finding every conceivable exception to it, reasonable or not. "No phones in the 18th century" didn't impress them as an argument. Fast forward to the 21st century and the endless War on Terrorism and the Supreme Court won't even hear suits because of a Catch-22 requirement that you can't challenge secret practices because you can't prove they've affected you.
BTW, the pertinent aspect of common carrier status is that it protects the phone companies, as they can't reasonably be expected to catch bad things communicated over their system.
In the UK we've never really gone in for violent revolution
British self-delusion. The English Civil War(s), and more generally the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, were about a lot more than beheading one lousy king, and were incredibly bloody affairs that can hardly be dismissed, as you try to do, as some minor exception to an otherwise peaceful history. The real difference between Britain and France or the US is that you had your revolution earlier.
Meh, that was some considerable time ago
17th century. American Revolution was 18th century. Not exactly recent.
you guys are always going on about the glory of the republic and the benefits that you gained via armed struggle against the state
As would the British if Cromwell hadn't been such a schmuck. You brought back Chuck 2, but in many meaningful ways what you call your Civil War(s) was a revolution. Things changed considerably and Chuck 2 was careful not to tell Parliament to go screw itself and wind up like his father. Britons pride themselves on the Glorious Revolution, but usually overlook that it was largely made possible by the recent Civil War(s) that, de facto, put Parliament in the driver's seat.
the sort of 'my country, right or wrong' jingoism that has you reciting oaths of loyalty in school and so forth?
The Pledge of Allegiance is not jingoistic in any way. That's some sort of weird European hangup over something that's little different from singing a national anthem.
Relocating New York City just isn't that bad, on the scale of world economies. Heck, it seems half of London is torn down and rebuilt in place every 10 years as it is. Major cities built on coasts is a legacy of time when manufacturing mattered - no reason modern cities need to be near shipping ports.
Is that your idea of "actual economic data"? You know, the stuff you want people who disagree with you to provide.
I get that when someone gets overly pedantic it is annoying. However...
You're being pedantic about being pedantic:)
with the amount of information we are ingesting (and of course outputting) there is bound to be a level of rebellion.
All the more so for those of us who have to work with/within systems that require our output to be correct. Missing a bracket
Technical people can actually think and communicate in a way that's precise and meaningful. Everybody else is an idiot. At least that's the way I look at it.
AFAIC as an employer I wouldn't want to hire anybody that brings up a lawsuit against their employers, which is why I wouldn't hire anybody in USA (and most other Western countries).
1. Thank you, as an American I wouldn't have it any other way.
2. They're not suing their employer, because you're not employed if you don't get paid.
corporations are a privileged form of social organization by statute... I filed forms with the government that upon approval gave me as a corporate owner certain legal, state-defined and state-protected privileges that my employees do not have the benefit of.... Advocates of Corporatism like yourself tend to forget this little detail: you as the owner or agent of a corporation have the backing of the massive, coercive power of the State. Your employees do not.
How unkind of you to say that. Most libertarians and other worshipers of The Free Market will ignore it, but the ones who don't often experience such cognitive dissonance that their heads explode. Please, at least give a health warning.
If an internship is done properly for the benefit of the intern, then it's worth doing it unpaid.
That's true, but the cost to an organization of having an internship like yours is already much greater than paying you minimum wage. It took your boss's time, facilities, etc. etc. If it's worth it to an organization to have an intern do real internship work, then paying minimum wage shouldn't be a barrier.
If you're saying that last correction was a troll (perhaps for laughs) then don't bother on Slashdot. People here are so anal that they will correct the smallest thing 27 times, or not realize when a correction is a joke. Ok, I fell for it this time, but yesterday I made a "correction" about mean vs. median and forgot the <irony> tag. Umpteen posters said the correction wasn't significant. No kidding, that was the joke! I "corrected" the correctors by becoming even more absurdly anal. They still didn't get it. Finally I posted that it was a joke, and still no effect.
On Slashdot there are some things you can't parody, because it's indistinguishable from the usual threads.
Different focus. The TI OMAP was designed for the smartphone market - the DSP to be used for the radio part. Da Vinci was designed for media players - the DSP used to accelerate video and audio en/decode.
That's what the TI reps always told me. I don't buy it - sounds like a marketing dept line where they talk about "applications areas" rather than what the chips do. Drives me nuts. When you look at the detailed guts of OMAP vs. da Vinci there is amazingly little difference. Where there are different specialized peripherals, they could easily adapt da Vinci to OMAP style uses. In fact one of the last "OMAP" parts to be released come from the da Vinci line but was branded an OMAP.
I've heard DD is good; but I'm not interested in Donuts
They sell donuts too?
it's gotta have flavor though
I like coffee you can stand a spoon up in. DD isn't like that, but it's definitely not brown water.
Strong and burnt have nothing to do with each other (even if Charbucks tends to be both, but not really that strong). I hate burnt, but my favorite coffee is when I brew a pot and I grab the first cup before it finishes brewing.
Starbucks and I make no apologies. Snobs can suck it.
Most people I know who hate Charbucks aren't snobs about it, they just dislike burnt coffee as much as they dislike other burnt things. Their "blonde roast" isn't bad really, though overpriced of course.
We're wired to dislike being wrong, especially in public
True. That's why I make it a point to never be wrong.
Most people would rather dig their heels in than admit they're wrong (viz: any government official).
Government officials may never admit they're wrong, but they'll change their "minds" depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Academics are worse (obviously a generalization, but not bad as generalizations go). Once they've established a reputation/career by saying one thing, you couldn't get a mathematician to admit he was wrong about 2+2=5.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not hard to pull number out of one's posterior, which is what these "economic impact" studies do.
Still not sure a 20yr monopoly is the best method, but so far have seen very few viable alternatives presented that serve both the benefactors and benefactees.
It's called public funding - scientific progress is a public good. As for the 20yr monopolies, those are supposed to cover inventions, not scientific discoveries.
"Generating economic impact" is a very useful measure.
That'd be true if it could actually be measured.
Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing for 30 years, now if anyone's premium goes up a dollar that's because of Obamacare?
No, but Obamacare does amazingly little to control costs. Obama started by giving pharma and med insurance companies what they wanted. There's a reason why the insurance stocks went up after it passed - what company has a problem with guaranteed customers? A public option would have given them a run for their money, and with pharma the collective bargaining power of 308M people could do something about prices. Some of the cost containment claimed is absurd. It limits the medical loss ratio, to a lower ratio (more for the insurance companies) than what they have now! And the pre-Obamacare MLR is lower than what they had ten years ago. I've believed in universal health care for decades, but I'm not sure we can afford Obama and congress kissing corporate butt like this.
Sedition.
That statement, that news shouldn't be published until "all the facts" are known is ludicrous. I'm no conspiracy nut, but we still don't have "all the facts" on the JFK assassination. But it would be silly to have ignored it, and just started referring to President Johnson one day.
The JFK assassination? We still don't have all the facts on the Revolution!
The Progressive Era and the New Deal ... essentially reversing the assumption from "Congress may only make laws about things the Constitution explicitly allows" to "Congress may make laws about anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid."
You're off by at least a hundred years. The precedent that "strict constructionists" overlook is the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Tom Jefferson and Jimmy Madison, ironically the original strict constructionists, tossed their own principle in the trash because they decided that buying that land (a power obviously not explicitly granted by the Constitution) was more important. Congress agreed when they forked over the money for it. RIP strict constructionism.
BTW, strict constructionism was never a clearly established principle, just one interpretation of the Constitution. Other Founding Fathers, including some that had been at the Constitutional Convention like Washington and Hamilton, never agreed with it.
Your rights in this regard are completely intact. You seem to think that emails, phone logs, and all manner of web data are "papers and effects", whereas no US court has ever held such a thing.
I have no doubt that if phones and the Internet had existed in 1789, they would have been covered by the 4th. Forgive the 1st congress for not fully anticipating 200+ years of technological change.
The explicit exception to this is phone calls, and these are only protected on account of the quasi-state status of telephone networks as "Common Carriers."
Bull. Wiretaps require a warrant only because the Supreme Court decided that they do, instead of, as they do today, shredding the Bill of Rights by finding every conceivable exception to it, reasonable or not. "No phones in the 18th century" didn't impress them as an argument. Fast forward to the 21st century and the endless War on Terrorism and the Supreme Court won't even hear suits because of a Catch-22 requirement that you can't challenge secret practices because you can't prove they've affected you.
BTW, the pertinent aspect of common carrier status is that it protects the phone companies, as they can't reasonably be expected to catch bad things communicated over their system.
In the UK we've never really gone in for violent revolution
British self-delusion. The English Civil War(s), and more generally the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, were about a lot more than beheading one lousy king, and were incredibly bloody affairs that can hardly be dismissed, as you try to do, as some minor exception to an otherwise peaceful history. The real difference between Britain and France or the US is that you had your revolution earlier.
Meh, that was some considerable time ago
17th century. American Revolution was 18th century. Not exactly recent.
you guys are always going on about the glory of the republic and the benefits that you gained via armed struggle against the state
As would the British if Cromwell hadn't been such a schmuck. You brought back Chuck 2, but in many meaningful ways what you call your Civil War(s) was a revolution. Things changed considerably and Chuck 2 was careful not to tell Parliament to go screw itself and wind up like his father. Britons pride themselves on the Glorious Revolution, but usually overlook that it was largely made possible by the recent Civil War(s) that, de facto, put Parliament in the driver's seat.
the sort of 'my country, right or wrong' jingoism that has you reciting oaths of loyalty in school and so forth?
The Pledge of Allegiance is not jingoistic in any way. That's some sort of weird European hangup over something that's little different from singing a national anthem.
Hydro-Quebec is indeed valuable. We will be invading your country again in short order. Remember, third time is a charm.
Better dead than Canadian.
Relocating New York City just isn't that bad, on the scale of world economies. Heck, it seems half of London is torn down and rebuilt in place every 10 years as it is. Major cities built on coasts is a legacy of time when manufacturing mattered - no reason modern cities need to be near shipping ports.
Is that your idea of "actual economic data"? You know, the stuff you want people who disagree with you to provide.
Staten Island and everybody poorer than Staten Island, like say Florida and Bangladesh, are hosed.
New Yorker here. Nobody cares about Staten Island anyway. Florida and Bangladesh are another story.
Some items came off the rationing list early; coffee was released as early as July 1943
They didn't really expect them to make B-29's and A-bombs without plenty of coffee, did they?
I get that when someone gets overly pedantic it is annoying. However ...
You're being pedantic about being pedantic :)
with the amount of information we are ingesting (and of course outputting) there is bound to be a level of rebellion. All the more so for those of us who have to work with/within systems that require our output to be correct. Missing a bracket
Technical people can actually think and communicate in a way that's precise and meaningful. Everybody else is an idiot. At least that's the way I look at it.
In politics what Monica did was relevant job experience. Politicians do it to their campaign contributors all the time.
AFAIC as an employer I wouldn't want to hire anybody that brings up a lawsuit against their employers, which is why I wouldn't hire anybody in USA (and most other Western countries).
1. Thank you, as an American I wouldn't have it any other way.
2. They're not suing their employer, because you're not employed if you don't get paid.
corporations are a privileged form of social organization by statute ... I filed forms with the government that upon approval gave me as a corporate owner certain legal, state-defined and state-protected privileges that my employees do not have the benefit of. ... Advocates of Corporatism like yourself tend to forget this little detail: you as the owner or agent of a corporation have the backing of the massive, coercive power of the State. Your employees do not.
How unkind of you to say that. Most libertarians and other worshipers of The Free Market will ignore it, but the ones who don't often experience such cognitive dissonance that their heads explode. Please, at least give a health warning.
" The part I'm really missing is if everybody wanted a paid internship why would anybody accept an unpaid one?"
Let's try an analogy.
Simpler analogy: I wanted a Ferrari, so why did I accept buying a Toyota?
If an internship is done properly for the benefit of the intern, then it's worth doing it unpaid.
That's true, but the cost to an organization of having an internship like yours is already much greater than paying you minimum wage. It took your boss's time, facilities, etc. etc. If it's worth it to an organization to have an intern do real internship work, then paying minimum wage shouldn't be a barrier.
successful troll.
If you're saying that last correction was a troll (perhaps for laughs) then don't bother on Slashdot. People here are so anal that they will correct the smallest thing 27 times, or not realize when a correction is a joke. Ok, I fell for it this time, but yesterday I made a "correction" about mean vs. median and forgot the <irony> tag. Umpteen posters said the correction wasn't significant. No kidding, that was the joke! I "corrected" the correctors by becoming even more absurdly anal. They still didn't get it. Finally I posted that it was a joke, and still no effect.
On Slashdot there are some things you can't parody, because it's indistinguishable from the usual threads.
Different focus. The TI OMAP was designed for the smartphone market - the DSP to be used for the radio part. Da Vinci was designed for media players - the DSP used to accelerate video and audio en/decode.
That's what the TI reps always told me. I don't buy it - sounds like a marketing dept line where they talk about "applications areas" rather than what the chips do. Drives me nuts. When you look at the detailed guts of OMAP vs. da Vinci there is amazingly little difference. Where there are different specialized peripherals, they could easily adapt da Vinci to OMAP style uses. In fact one of the last "OMAP" parts to be released come from the da Vinci line but was branded an OMAP.
I've heard DD is good; but I'm not interested in Donuts
They sell donuts too?
it's gotta have flavor though
I like coffee you can stand a spoon up in. DD isn't like that, but it's definitely not brown water.
Strong and burnt have nothing to do with each other (even if Charbucks tends to be both, but not really that strong). I hate burnt, but my favorite coffee is when I brew a pot and I grab the first cup before it finishes brewing.
Starbucks and I make no apologies. Snobs can suck it.
Most people I know who hate Charbucks aren't snobs about it, they just dislike burnt coffee as much as they dislike other burnt things. Their "blonde roast" isn't bad really, though overpriced of course.
Ok folks, enough. I think the OP now understands that he made a (*gasp*) mistake.
We're wired to dislike being wrong, especially in public
True. That's why I make it a point to never be wrong.
Most people would rather dig their heels in than admit they're wrong (viz: any government official).
Government officials may never admit they're wrong, but they'll change their "minds" depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Academics are worse (obviously a generalization, but not bad as generalizations go). Once they've established a reputation/career by saying one thing, you couldn't get a mathematician to admit he was wrong about 2+2=5.