Another thing that makes getting accurate numbers harder is that marijuana metabolites stay in the system much longer. With current methods, it's not an indication of being stoned when they wrecked so much as it an indication that they've been stoned within a week.
So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that? Is there a countdown to when ending my life is my own business? About what age are you going to actually become 'your own man'? If I cure a disease, can I kill myself right after? If I'm never a net contribution to society, am I perpetually in debt and thus never able to commit suicide, or am I never getting out of that hole, and thus free to kill myself at any time?
So, the problem is that it's too easy for people to do what they want to do, and they are thus subject to the injustice of actually doing what they want to do?
The reality is that our bodies react in a number of different ways to a number of different chemicals, so the healthy choice would depend on a number of factors, and your overall long term well being is an even more complicated matter, since it's often dependent upon relationships with others, employment, etc.. If you skip breakfast to make a meeting that grants you a better paying job with more free time, it's probably a net win.
Have they? The only thing I'm aware of happening on a big scale are newbies eating large amounts of edibles not realizing their potency and then losing control. Basically a matter of not having a proper dosage and labeling system.
No, antisocial people are the first to set buses on fire. You meant to say asocial, but this has nothing to do with that. He's also not saying anything about how things should be run other than implicitly wanting the government to leave him alone. No paradox here, it's live and let live.
Dying of AIDS-related illness is a pretty big stretch. So, you get drunk, have unprotected sex and contract HIV, which attacks your immune system, and you die of an opportunistic virus. That seems to have enough factors involved that putting it on alcohol is an enormous stretch.
It doesn't sound like your entity is doing anything that ordinary citizens couldn't legally do. That's quite different from a SWAT team, which conducts acts that civilians don't have authorization for.
I believe that FOIA requests allow for redacting of such sensitive details, so there's nothing close to this song and dance needed. However, I don't think there's a great deal of direct overlap between SWAT and undercover (they might work on the same cases, but not directly working together), so it's probably completely irrelevant here.
Not really, given that this is still being paid for by taxpayers. Actual libertarians wouldn't support this because the reality is that this is a very large government entity using bureaucracy to avoid accountability.
THe banking industry is probably wanting a step up in security, while the NSA under Alexander had horrible internal security. Alexander's forte seems to be using brute force to break the security of others, not actually keeping an organization secure.
Unless they get the brooding down properly, or manage to couch it in humor, or draw on it for artistic influence, or they have lots of money, or they are significantly physically attractive, or they are female.
I doubt this conversation will be fruitful, as you handwave any arguments contrary to your own as being biased, despite our current policy suffering from much heavier bias. There are more thorough factual analysis in what I've cited there than pretty much anything I've seen presented by anyone that actually supported patents. It's mostly boils down not understanding how exponential growth works and the fact that patents haven't make technology regress. I don't even agree with many of Mark Lemly's conclusions, but he does great work overall.
No, you draw a baseline on the system you actually have and compare changes to that.
How are you going to compare the system we have now with the system we have now? There is by definition no difference. You could apply that with any number of practices. If the current treatment for throat cancer was shooting the patient in the foot, and someone said we need to abolish that practice, would you say that shooting yourself in the foot is no worse than shooting yourself in the foot, or point out that not shooting yourself in the foot is roughly equally effective at curing cancer and results in far less injury to patients?
If you want to assert that every possible system to combat the free rider problem is more harmful than no system at all
I don't want to assert that every possible system is more harmful. I just wanted to assert that one method of doing so is. That is enough to make a decision that will improve our outcome.
I wasn't talking about the tragedy of the commons. I was talking about the free rider problem which is not the same thing.
The paper I cited explains how complaining about free riders doesn't make sense in regards to innovation.
Furthermore patents shouldn't apply to the intangible either so exactly what is your point?
Patents themselves convey control over something intangible. They control how knowledge can be used, when knowledge is not expendable. That's why they make a poor analog. It's also why patents are called 'intangible assets' from an accounting perspective.
I disagree that the patent system is a net harm and you certainly haven't established that as a fact. There is a HUGE difference between showing that the patent system causes some harm (which it demonstrably does) and showing that it is a net harm. You have not shown in any way that it is a net harm.
I would recommend reading Against Intellectual Property. It's full of real world evidence as well as theory on why patents and copyright range from roughly the same output to significant harm.
But let's assume for a moment that the patent system as it stands is a net harm as you claim. If the patent system as it stands is a net harm, it does not follow that doing away with it in favor of no system at all is automatically less harmful.
No system is by definition zero harm. That's where we draw the baseline. Whether the patent system is harmful or helpful is measured by a comparison of how we would function without a patent system. SO please tell me what the hell you thought net harm was in comparison to?
Your logic only works if those are the only two alternatives and if you can somehow prove that any possible patent system would be inherently more damaging than no system at all./blockquote.
No, it doesn't, because I'm not saying that no patent system is the ideal. I'm just saying that it's better than having a patent system. So long as it's better than not having a patent system, it's still an improvement. Let's say that you moved to a country in which they treat cancer by shooting patients in the foot. You don't have to cure cancer in order to tell them that they are better off doing nothing than shooting patients in the foot, and to claim otherwise would be idiocy.
The legal monopoly functions pretty much the same. The differences are in how that legal monopoly is obtained, and that is based on absurdly simplified and utterly incorrect models on how invention happens. Furthermore, I am saying that it was clearly beyond the capability of 17th century Parliament of England to create a system that increased the rate of innovation starting from scratch, let alone adopting an existing tool for a new purpose for which it is ill fitted. Even if you assembled the brightest minds in relevant fields TODAY to create a system with that goal, success would be surprising.
Letters patent, the predecessor to patents, came about more or less as a way of rewarding those who won the favor of the reigning monarch or collecting income without a visible tax. This was a time period before anything resembling modern economics, game theory, or psychology, so it would be quite an oddity if such an institution were to actually succeed in accomplishing a task as complicated as increasing the rate of innovation. It'd be roughly on par with a chimp constructing a nuclear bomb.
Governments should ideally be completely open, with anything that needs to be not publicly accessible requiring an adequate justification for doing so.
How about sex? We are suffering from two major problems. Increasing monoculture in our food and industrial crops, and a decline in pollinators. If we shifted towards more sexual reproduction in these areas, we might be able to help with both issues simultaneously.
Neither the law nor case law says that construction materials or chemicals are not patentable subject matter. If we legally define all of those things in the matter that you suggest, everything stays the same in regards to 101. So, effectively, the law does what you say it should, it just doesn't do what you illogically conclude it should.
Again, this seems to extend from your misinterpretation of what is meant by 'just data.' If the patent consisted of just "a law of nature", which is similarly excluded, it would not be patentable either, as in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co... You haven't presented evidence that there is any patentable subject matter in software.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing that makes getting accurate numbers harder is that marijuana metabolites stay in the system much longer. With current methods, it's not an indication of being stoned when they wrecked so much as it an indication that they've been stoned within a week.
So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that? Is there a countdown to when ending my life is my own business? About what age are you going to actually become 'your own man'? If I cure a disease, can I kill myself right after? If I'm never a net contribution to society, am I perpetually in debt and thus never able to commit suicide, or am I never getting out of that hole, and thus free to kill myself at any time?
So, the problem is that it's too easy for people to do what they want to do, and they are thus subject to the injustice of actually doing what they want to do?
The reality is that our bodies react in a number of different ways to a number of different chemicals, so the healthy choice would depend on a number of factors, and your overall long term well being is an even more complicated matter, since it's often dependent upon relationships with others, employment, etc.. If you skip breakfast to make a meeting that grants you a better paying job with more free time, it's probably a net win.
Have they? The only thing I'm aware of happening on a big scale are newbies eating large amounts of edibles not realizing their potency and then losing control. Basically a matter of not having a proper dosage and labeling system.
Are there major healthcare costs associated with suicide by handgun? If someone wants to kill themselves, how is it society's concern?
No, antisocial people are the first to set buses on fire. You meant to say asocial, but this has nothing to do with that. He's also not saying anything about how things should be run other than implicitly wanting the government to leave him alone. No paradox here, it's live and let live.
Dying of AIDS-related illness is a pretty big stretch. So, you get drunk, have unprotected sex and contract HIV, which attacks your immune system, and you die of an opportunistic virus. That seems to have enough factors involved that putting it on alcohol is an enormous stretch.
It doesn't sound like your entity is doing anything that ordinary citizens couldn't legally do. That's quite different from a SWAT team, which conducts acts that civilians don't have authorization for.
I believe that FOIA requests allow for redacting of such sensitive details, so there's nothing close to this song and dance needed. However, I don't think there's a great deal of direct overlap between SWAT and undercover (they might work on the same cases, but not directly working together), so it's probably completely irrelevant here.
If they are not law enforcement, they are a private company that is assaulting and kidnapping citizens.
Not really, given that this is still being paid for by taxpayers. Actual libertarians wouldn't support this because the reality is that this is a very large government entity using bureaucracy to avoid accountability.
THe banking industry is probably wanting a step up in security, while the NSA under Alexander had horrible internal security. Alexander's forte seems to be using brute force to break the security of others, not actually keeping an organization secure.
Unless they get the brooding down properly, or manage to couch it in humor, or draw on it for artistic influence, or they have lots of money, or they are significantly physically attractive, or they are female.
Just do it harder. That'll work.
How are you going to compare the system we have now with the system we have now? There is by definition no difference. You could apply that with any number of practices. If the current treatment for throat cancer was shooting the patient in the foot, and someone said we need to abolish that practice, would you say that shooting yourself in the foot is no worse than shooting yourself in the foot, or point out that not shooting yourself in the foot is roughly equally effective at curing cancer and results in far less injury to patients?
I don't want to assert that every possible system is more harmful. I just wanted to assert that one method of doing so is. That is enough to make a decision that will improve our outcome.
The paper I cited explains how complaining about free riders doesn't make sense in regards to innovation.
Patents themselves convey control over something intangible. They control how knowledge can be used, when knowledge is not expendable. That's why they make a poor analog. It's also why patents are called 'intangible assets' from an accounting perspective.
I would recommend reading Against Intellectual Property. It's full of real world evidence as well as theory on why patents and copyright range from roughly the same output to significant harm.
No system is by definition zero harm. That's where we draw the baseline. Whether the patent system is harmful or helpful is measured by a comparison of how we would function without a patent system. SO please tell me what the hell you thought net harm was in comparison to?
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply to the intangible. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
If the patent system is a net harm, then doing nothing is a superior alternative.
The legal monopoly functions pretty much the same. The differences are in how that legal monopoly is obtained, and that is based on absurdly simplified and utterly incorrect models on how invention happens. Furthermore, I am saying that it was clearly beyond the capability of 17th century Parliament of England to create a system that increased the rate of innovation starting from scratch, let alone adopting an existing tool for a new purpose for which it is ill fitted. Even if you assembled the brightest minds in relevant fields TODAY to create a system with that goal, success would be surprising.
Letters patent, the predecessor to patents, came about more or less as a way of rewarding those who won the favor of the reigning monarch or collecting income without a visible tax. This was a time period before anything resembling modern economics, game theory, or psychology, so it would be quite an oddity if such an institution were to actually succeed in accomplishing a task as complicated as increasing the rate of innovation. It'd be roughly on par with a chimp constructing a nuclear bomb.
Governments should ideally be completely open, with anything that needs to be not publicly accessible requiring an adequate justification for doing so.
Just because treaties often are negotiated in secret doesn't mean that they should be.
How about sex? We are suffering from two major problems. Increasing monoculture in our food and industrial crops, and a decline in pollinators. If we shifted towards more sexual reproduction in these areas, we might be able to help with both issues simultaneously.
Neither the law nor case law says that construction materials or chemicals are not patentable subject matter. If we legally define all of those things in the matter that you suggest, everything stays the same in regards to 101. So, effectively, the law does what you say it should, it just doesn't do what you illogically conclude it should.
Again, this seems to extend from your misinterpretation of what is meant by 'just data.' If the patent consisted of just "a law of nature", which is similarly excluded, it would not be patentable either, as in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co... You haven't presented evidence that there is any patentable subject matter in software.
First, Colorado legalizes weed, resulting in a Rocky Mountain high, and now we have evidence that sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.