You want to block companies from hiring the best workers at the best price? If a Canadian company can't hire the best workers for the best price, a foreign company will. What's your plan for blocking Canadians from buying the best software (which will be foreign if you get your way) at the best price? What about blocking them from buying the best cars, tvs, phones, etc at the best price?
Nice narrative, too bad it's not based on facts. You don't need to Google far to see those "who don't support this country" and who's "refusing to live up to basic responsibility of living in this country".
The bottom 20% had average income of $8,100 but received $22,700 in annual assistance, netting $30,800 in after-tax income.
The second quintile had average income of $30,700 but received $15,200 in annual assistance, netting $43,400 in after-tax income.
The middle quintile had average income of $54,800 and received $8,100 in annual assistance.
The second-highest quintile ($87,700 income) paid $8,800 more in taxes each than they got back.
The highest quintile ($234,400 income) paid $52,500 more in taxes each year than they got back.
If the consumer creates jobs, then there is no reason for employers. Consumer can just pool their money and create a company. Kickstarter style. But wait,even in Kickstarter, there needs to be someone to pitch the product, invest in a prototype, take the risk of launching the product. And not all Kickstarter campaigns succeed and the producer takes a wash. And if the Kickstarter succeeds, then the producer hires employees to create the product. Employees which were either unemployed before or underemployed. So, who created those jobs? The Kickstarter producer or the consumer? Did the Kickstarter producer allocate land, labor, and capital to meet a need of the consumer? Where were the consumers before the product was created? Where were the employees before the producer came along?
Why would publishing it be automatically considered as an intent to give up your ownership over your intellectual property. And if that is the case, then the same should apply to copyrights. If you don't register with the copyright office your blog post, article, music, source code, graphic design, etc, before making it public, than those would automatically be public domain, where I can take your IP, put my name on it, and sell it for a profit.
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17,U.S.Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following"
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who cre ated the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright"
"Is my copyright good in other countries?" "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights."
So if you create a story about a boy wizard who goes to wizarding school, you own that work and you also get to own the imaginary characters that you created, No one can write a story using your specific boy wizard character. All this happens instantaneously, across multiple countries, for free as soon as you write it.
You spend thousands creating a better internal combustion engine, you have to go the patent office (and maybe get a patent lawyer), pay huge sums of money, wait years to hear from the patent office. and after all that you get to claim that you own your own invention. And you have to do this across each country you want to claim that you own your own invention, so that others can't take it, put their name on it, and sell it for a profit and give you nothing.
If I come up with an invention, and pay the state money, I can claim ownership of it.
If I come up with an invention, and not pay the state, or (in the EU) not pay the state before I publicize it, the state takes ownership of it (steals it).
Does that make sense to anyone? If so, I sure would like to hear it.
For $160, you can buy a Lenovo 7" tablet that comes with a display, battery, storage, wifi, bluetooth, etc. You can then interface with anything you like via wifi/bluetooth or a usb breakout board.
Cry me a river, average teacher in Wisconsin makes $90k/year (salary + benefits). If you refuse to teach basic English and math concepts for $90k, QUIT and let someone else who wants to be there do it.
I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?
Who is to say the guy replacing him is any better? Look at Steve Jobs' replacement, a supply chain guy. As if Apple was successful because of their supply chain. If that were the case, Walmart would have been the top mp3 player/phone/tablet maker a long time ago.
Ford paid $5 a day to its workers in 1914. In today's dollars that's $116.75, or $14.60 an hour. The average salary at an Apple store is $11.64 an hour.
Companies are not willing to train people in-house.
Why should they? Isn't that the point of going to college in the first place? Get training? If you go to a mechanics school for 4 years to learn how to fix cars, you want Midas to teach you how to change the brakes on the job?
Don't waste your breath. Anyone who doesn't immediately understand why a iPhone interface is not suitable for the desktop will never be persuaded by any post.
From the article:"There’s a level of risk and creativity going on that would never have happened two years ago.”
Creativity is not forcing people to use an iPad interface on their desktops, a better word would be idiocy. Idiocy, as in forcing system admins to use an iPad interface on Windows Server 2012. Idiocy, as in having two taskbars, one on the bottom, and one auto-hiding on the right side.
, because overzealous IP has killed all American engineering innovation
Hah, like there was no IP in the good old days? You do realize that the integrated circuit, building blocks of every electronic device, was heavily IP'ed.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit)
The idea of integrating electronic circuits into a single device was born, when the German physicist and engineer Werner Jacobi (de) developed and patented the first known integrated transistor amplifier in 1949 and the British radio engineer Geoffrey Dummer proposed to integrate a variety of standard electronic components in a monolithic semiconductor crystal in 1952. A year later, Harwick Johnson filed a patent for a prototype integrated circuit (IC)....
Newly employed by Texas Instruments, Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958, successfully demonstrating the first working integrated example on 12 September 1958.[10] In his patent application of 6 February 1959, Kilby described his new device as “a body of semiconductor material... wherein all the components of the electronic circuit are completely integrated.”[11]
Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor invented a way to connect the IC components (aluminium metallization) and proposed an improved version of insulation based on the planar technology by Jean Hoerni. On September 27, 1960, using the ideas of Noyce and Hoerni, a group of Jay Last at Fairchild Semiconductor created the first operational semiconductor IC. Texas Instruments, which held the patent for the Kilby's invention, started a patent war, which was settled in 1966 by the agreement on cross-licensing.
Right, software that runs the entire modern economy should have 0 IP rights given to those who create it, meanwhile swinging on swing gets 20 year IP protection. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
You assume the patent office actually follows its own guidelines
It doesn't matter what the patent office does. As soon as you try to enforce it, the other sides lawyer will rip up your patent that does not state a specific method of solving a specific problem.
"Most software patents are only problem statements and provide no solution to the problem at all"
I don't understand what you're talking about. You can't patent problems, you can only patent a solution to a certain problem. Even if you do patent a problem, good luck defending it against a PTO re-exam or in court, let alone collecting any kind of royalty.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent : An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, and may be a product or a process.
Nonsense. What about mechanical inventions? Why not force those patents to provide mechanical samples and CAD files? What about computer hardware patents? Why not force them to provide VHDL code, ORCAD files? What makes software patents so bad compared to any other patent? You think that trolls don't exist with other patent types?
So we have a sensationalist Slashdot story with a sensationalist post marked as insightful.
First the patent:
"Thresholds may be set which limit transfer of a used digital object after the occurrence of certain events. For example, a threshold may limit how many times a used digital object may be permissibly moved to another personalized data store, how many downloads (if any) may occur before transfer is restricted, etc. These thresholds help to maintain scarcity of digital objects in the marketplace and/or to comply with licensing requirements of the digital object, by putting conditions on when and how many times used digital objects may be transferred."
The patent is specifically related to DRM and transfer rights.
Second the post:
No one has patented a way to make you pay more through artificial scarcity. In a free market you will pay less, that is a fact. The more the price of a good goes up in a free market, the more producers and entrepreneurs will be willing to provide that good. Look at the dropping prices and increasing quality in free market goods such as iPhone/Adnroid phones, plasma TV's, clothing, food. Look at the rising prices and decreasing quality in non-free market/government intervened/government subsidized goods such as post office, education, health care.
People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me? Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories. How can you eat less than 2000 calories and not lose weight. A calorie is the amount of energy in the food that is measured through burning in a bomb calorimeter. Your body can't extract more calories from a 500 calorie Big Mac than 500 calories. If all you eat in one day is 500/1200 calories, where are the extra calories that are needed for basic body functions coming from? Are certain people more efficient at using calories than others? By a factor of 2, only needing 1000 calories? Or by a factor of 4, only needing 500 calories?
Search the article for "calories" and not a single mention. If you eat more than about 2000 calories, you're going to gain weight,less- you lose weight. I don't see any way the subjects in the experiment lost weight without lowering their normal calorie intake.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to block companies from hiring the best workers at the best price? If a Canadian company can't hire the best workers for the best price, a foreign company will. What's your plan for blocking Canadians from buying the best software (which will be foreign if you get your way) at the best price? What about blocking them from buying the best cars, tvs, phones, etc at the best price?
Nice narrative, too bad it's not based on facts. You don't need to Google far to see those "who don't support this country" and who's "refusing to live up to basic responsibility of living in this country".
http://globaleconomicanalysis....
The bottom 20% had average income of $8,100 but received $22,700 in annual assistance, netting $30,800 in after-tax income.
The second quintile had average income of $30,700 but received $15,200 in annual assistance, netting $43,400 in after-tax income.
The middle quintile had average income of $54,800 and received $8,100 in annual assistance.
The second-highest quintile ($87,700 income) paid $8,800 more in taxes each than they got back.
The highest quintile ($234,400 income) paid $52,500 more in taxes each year than they got back.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau...
If the consumer creates jobs, then there is no reason for employers. Consumer can just pool their money and create a company. Kickstarter style. But wait,even in Kickstarter, there needs to be someone to pitch the product, invest in a prototype, take the risk of launching the product. And not all Kickstarter campaigns succeed and the producer takes a wash. And if the Kickstarter succeeds, then the producer hires employees to create the product. Employees which were either unemployed before or underemployed. So, who created those jobs? The Kickstarter producer or the consumer? Did the Kickstarter producer allocate land, labor, and capital to meet a need of the consumer? Where were the consumers before the product was created? Where were the employees before the producer came along?
Why would publishing it be automatically considered as an intent to give up your ownership over your intellectual property. And if that is the case, then the same should apply to copyrights. If you don't register with the copyright office your blog post, article, music, source code, graphic design, etc, before making it public, than those would automatically be public domain, where I can take your IP, put my name on it, and sell it for a profit.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.html
But copyrights are basically free, and apply automatically at the moment they are created by their authors.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17,U.S.Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive
right to do and to authorize others to do the following"
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre
ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who cre
ated the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights
through the author can rightfully claim copyright"
"Is my copyright good in other countries?"
"The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights."
So if you create a story about a boy wizard who goes to wizarding school, you own that work and you also get to own the imaginary characters that you created, No one can write a story using your specific boy wizard character. All this happens instantaneously, across multiple countries, for free as soon as you write it.
You spend thousands creating a better internal combustion engine, you have to go the patent office (and maybe get a patent lawyer), pay huge sums of money, wait years to hear from the patent office. and after all that you get to claim that you own your own invention. And you have to do this across each country you want to claim that you own your own invention, so that others can't take it, put their name on it, and sell it for a profit and give you nothing.
If I come up with an invention, and pay the state money, I can claim ownership of it.
If I come up with an invention, and not pay the state, or (in the EU) not pay the state before I publicize it, the state takes ownership of it (steals it).
Does that make sense to anyone? If so, I sure would like to hear it.
For $160, you can buy a Lenovo 7" tablet that comes with a display, battery, storage, wifi, bluetooth, etc. You can then interface with anything you like via wifi/bluetooth or a usb breakout board.
http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/tablets/ideatab/a-series/a2107/
People knew the taper wasn't happening weeks beforehand, without any insider knowledge;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tak9ODlBJgM
Cry me a river, average teacher in Wisconsin makes $90k/year (salary + benefits). If you refuse to teach basic English and math concepts for $90k, QUIT and let someone else who wants to be there do it.
Even monopolies can fire their employees, try firing a teacher from a public school with teachers unions and tenure.
Why is it a false equivalence? I take the job either at the stated price or by underbiding everyone else, once I get it, I stop work and ask for more.
I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?
Who is to say the guy replacing him is any better? Look at Steve Jobs' replacement, a supply chain guy. As if Apple was successful because of their supply chain. If that were the case, Walmart would have been the top mp3 player/phone/tablet maker a long time ago.
Ford paid $5 a day to its workers in 1914. In today's dollars that's $116.75, or $14.60 an hour. The average salary at an Apple store is $11.64 an hour.
Companies are not willing to train people in-house.
Why should they? Isn't that the point of going to college in the first place? Get training? If you go to a mechanics school for 4 years to learn how to fix cars, you want Midas to teach you how to change the brakes on the job?
Don't waste your breath. Anyone who doesn't immediately understand why a iPhone interface is not suitable for the desktop will never be persuaded by any post.
From the article:"There’s a level of risk and creativity going on that would never have happened two years ago.”
Creativity is not forcing people to use an iPad interface on their desktops, a better word would be idiocy. Idiocy, as in forcing system admins to use an iPad interface on Windows Server 2012. Idiocy, as in having two taskbars, one on the bottom, and one auto-hiding on the right side.
Win8 is fully functional as a general-purpose OS
Any OS that has two taskbars is not functional.
, because overzealous IP has killed all American engineering innovation
Hah, like there was no IP in the good old days? You do realize that the integrated circuit, building blocks of every electronic device, was heavily IP'ed.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit)
The idea of integrating electronic circuits into a single device was born, when the German physicist and engineer Werner Jacobi (de) developed and patented the first known integrated transistor amplifier in 1949 and the British radio engineer Geoffrey Dummer proposed to integrate a variety of standard electronic components in a monolithic semiconductor crystal in 1952. A year later, Harwick Johnson filed a patent for a prototype integrated circuit (IC) ....
Newly employed by Texas Instruments, Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958, successfully demonstrating the first working integrated example on 12 September 1958.[10] In his patent application of 6 February 1959, Kilby described his new device as “a body of semiconductor material ... wherein all the components of the electronic circuit are completely integrated.”[11]
Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor invented a way to connect the IC components (aluminium metallization) and proposed an improved version of insulation based on the planar technology by Jean Hoerni. On September 27, 1960, using the ideas of Noyce and Hoerni, a group of Jay Last at Fairchild Semiconductor created the first operational semiconductor IC. Texas Instruments, which held the patent for the Kilby's invention, started a patent war, which was settled in 1966 by the agreement on cross-licensing.
Software should not be patentable. Period.
Right, software that runs the entire modern economy should have 0 IP rights given to those who create it, meanwhile swinging on swing gets 20 year IP protection.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
You assume the patent office actually follows its own guidelines
It doesn't matter what the patent office does. As soon as you try to enforce it, the other sides lawyer will rip up your patent that does not state a specific method of solving a specific problem.
"Most software patents are only problem statements and provide no solution to the problem at all"
I don't understand what you're talking about. You can't patent problems, you can only patent a solution to a certain problem. Even if you do patent a problem, good luck defending it against a PTO re-exam or in court, let alone collecting any kind of royalty.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent : An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, and may be a product or a process.
Nonsense. What about mechanical inventions? Why not force those patents to provide mechanical samples and CAD files? What about computer hardware patents? Why not force them to provide VHDL code, ORCAD files? What makes software patents so bad compared to any other patent? You think that trolls don't exist with other patent types?
So we have a sensationalist Slashdot story with a sensationalist post marked as insightful.
First the patent:
"Thresholds may be set which limit transfer of a used digital object after the occurrence of certain events. For example, a threshold may limit how many times a used digital object may be permissibly moved to another personalized data store, how many downloads (if any) may occur before transfer is restricted, etc. These thresholds help to maintain scarcity of digital objects in the marketplace and/or to comply with licensing requirements of the digital object, by putting conditions on when and how many times used digital objects may be transferred."
The patent is specifically related to DRM and transfer rights.
Second the post:
No one has patented a way to make you pay more through artificial scarcity. In a free market you will pay less, that is a fact. The more the price of a good goes up in a free market, the more producers and entrepreneurs will be willing to provide that good. Look at the dropping prices and increasing quality in free market goods such as iPhone/Adnroid phones, plasma TV's, clothing, food. Look at the rising prices and decreasing quality in non-free market/government intervened/government subsidized goods such as post office, education, health care.
People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me? Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories. How can you eat less than 2000 calories and not lose weight. A calorie is the amount of energy in the food that is measured through burning in a bomb calorimeter. Your body can't extract more calories from a 500 calorie Big Mac than 500 calories. If all you eat in one day is 500/1200 calories, where are the extra calories that are needed for basic body functions coming from? Are certain people more efficient at using calories than others? By a factor of 2, only needing 1000 calories? Or by a factor of 4, only needing 500 calories?
Search the article for "calories" and not a single mention. If you eat more than about 2000 calories, you're going to gain weight,less- you lose weight. I don't see any way the subjects in the experiment lost weight without lowering their normal calorie intake.