The car analogy would be that you're looking for driving tips on how to avoid a pile-up, so you keep on driving until you find a pile-up accident scene, and then you crash into it and ask the other survivors for advice.
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention that public works funded by private citizens is not unheard of. The most famous example of which would be the Statue of Liberty.
Only a very small percentage of your taxes goes to NASA. Suppose I want to fund NASA without funding the 3 wars at the same time, I would have to jump through a lot of hoops. There is currently no legal way of donating to NASA besides signing up for a tour and then giving the security guard a suitcase of cash claiming that you found it unattended.
Nearly $3 million dollars was donated to the US treasury last year, out of which NASA received roughly $15,000. I suspect that if NASA ran a well publicized donation drive for one of its more well-known missions (manned mission to Mars for example), they could easily solicit 10 or times that amount. For one, foreign donations to the US treasury is probably rare, but I imagine many foreign Scifi fans are willing to donate to NASA, myself being one.
I perfectly agree that patents are governmental constructs. Without governments, the rule of law, and a functioning court system, patents would not exist.
But I could argue that the concept of ownership is also just a social construct. In a lawless environment, I "own" everything that I can obtain with force. Without a functioning legal system the concept of ownership cannot be enforced.
Copyright is similar, though it was meant to give creators some incentive to create.
If people are going to continue to claim property rights, they should pay a property tax.
They don't claim property rights. They confuse the issue with the poor phrase "intellectual property" even though it isn't.
Patents is a type of intellectual property by definition. Maybe this isn't true in your local jurisdiction, but it's certainly the case in the US, where Google is located.
The footnote has nothing to do with my personal moral principles. My personal principles do not tolerate fictitious legal persons but that's entirely irrelevant to the present discussion.
The footnote is merely a statement of fact based on the various anti-discrimination laws that companies have to comply with while operating in the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
And now you spend your Saturday alone posting on slashdot.
The car analogy would be that you're looking for driving tips on how to avoid a pile-up, so you keep on driving until you find a pile-up accident scene, and then you crash into it and ask the other survivors for advice.
I gave up both the internet and TV at home.
I see that you are not reading carefully enough.
El Psy Congroo
Defense? That's one of the very few legitimate functions of government.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately very little of the $700 billion military budget last year went towards defending this country from foreign enemies.
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention that public works funded by private citizens is not unheard of. The most famous example of which would be the Statue of Liberty.
GP has a very good point actually.
Only a very small percentage of your taxes goes to NASA. Suppose I want to fund NASA without funding the 3 wars at the same time, I would have to jump through a lot of hoops. There is currently no legal way of donating to NASA besides signing up for a tour and then giving the security guard a suitcase of cash claiming that you found it unattended.
Nearly $3 million dollars was donated to the US treasury last year, out of which NASA received roughly $15,000. I suspect that if NASA ran a well publicized donation drive for one of its more well-known missions (manned mission to Mars for example), they could easily solicit 10 or times that amount. For one, foreign donations to the US treasury is probably rare, but I imagine many foreign Scifi fans are willing to donate to NASA, myself being one.
June 6, 1942
In a related story, Transcenic Inc filed a patent infringement sue against Google, Microsoft, MapQuest, and AOL for allegedly violating their 3D mapping technology.
Guess who Transcenic Inc is targeting next?
Note: this is post is meant to be humorous. I realize that patent doesn't apply in this case. Not without the Chewbacca defense at least.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
I said "starting 3 wars", not "declaring 3 wars". USA last declared war in 1942, and has started at least two dozen wars since then.
Cyber-attacks and human-rights violations might be hideous, but they're still incomparable to starting 3 wars.
It's a pretty sad world when people still pay attention to Fox.
All those secret fiber-tapping rooms must be causing re-transmission errors.
I perfectly agree that patents are governmental constructs. Without governments, the rule of law, and a functioning court system, patents would not exist.
But I could argue that the concept of ownership is also just a social construct. In a lawless environment, I "own" everything that I can obtain with force. Without a functioning legal system the concept of ownership cannot be enforced.
Apparently General Montgomery never heard of Genghis Khan and Nurhaci.
Copyright is similar, though it was meant to give creators some incentive to create.
They don't claim property rights. They confuse the issue with the poor phrase "intellectual property" even though it isn't.
Patents is a type of intellectual property by definition. Maybe this isn't true in your local jurisdiction, but it's certainly the case in the US, where Google is located.
Because discussing it in detail would land you where Manning is?
In other words, GP is wrong. There's no such as thing as NDA and civil suits in military tribunals.
Hu cares.
Wow, Canada is ranked above US?
I realize it's the 4th of July, but US still have 10 times the population.
No wonder they beat me to the first post every time. Damn them and their 300+ APM.
The footnote has nothing to do with my personal moral principles. My personal principles do not tolerate fictitious legal persons but that's entirely irrelevant to the present discussion.
The footnote is merely a statement of fact based on the various anti-discrimination laws that companies have to comply with while operating in the EU.
Prince of Darkness: "So what do you want in return for your soul?"
Cohen:"An efficient peer-to-peer file sharing protocol that can't be killed by RIAA/MPAA. Oh wait, eternal youth too."
What if that organism is a virus?