I have the impression that gilroy was talking about the average. "This is only a general rule and of course varies tremendously in individuals." Maybe my English is too poor (it's my secondary language) to read your words wrong, but it seems that you try to refute gilroy's statement by using yourself as an example. From statistics point of view, your argument doesn't contradict to gilroy's statement.
I hate to say this, but it seems to me that you would not have this fatal flaw in your argument if you have had thought about that logically.
America doesn't produce a lot of scientific elites among Americans. There is significant portions of PhD students are from foriegn countries.
This is even worse, the whole education systems are not really producing. I have the feeling, the situation of scientific illiterates are getting worse (compare to before). There weren't many teachers with well training to teach science before, yet the situation now is worse than ever.
So, pay better to teachers could help, but there may be other reasons that students know less science. It is highly possible that developing a career in science does not get you as good life as you get an MBA. When everyone tells you that you just need to be able to ride certain wave of the rising bubble in the economy to get rich, you don't care what you should have learnt.
The purpose of patent is not promoting innovation, but promoting innovation when innovation is too little.
Problem of many innovations is the positive externality. Because the free market without patent fail to compensate the innovators for the goods an innovation done to others, the innovators lost incentive to innovate to the point that is optimal to the society. Patent is not to protect the benefits of the innovators. Patent is to protect the benefits of the society as a whole.
Monopoly is also sub-optimal. However, through the use of monopoly power from patent, innovators have the incentive to innovate more. The existence of patent length is to balance the social cost of monopoly and the social gain of innovation.
Now, the social cost of letting this monopoly on the AIDS drug stand is huge (the lost of lives of AIDS patients who would have stayed alive if they could buy those drug). The drug company has captured quite a lot of profits from it already. I would say that's enough for them to keep innovating. Don't you think it's time for the drugs to save more lives?
Is the fixed patent length good for any situation? The answer is definitely no. In some situation, letting the patent length shorter is better to the society as a whole. I'm afraid this is the case.
So stop fighting on the merit of keeping this patents or not. If you guys want to argue, argue how much gain to the society for saving those lives without the patents and how much lost to the society because of the discouragement in innovation.
There's a target Americans want desperately to hate. It was Russians during the cold war, and now it's Chinese.
I wouldn't say that Americans were wrong by sending spy plane, just I always want remind people what happen if the case reverse. Americans are not always right.
Indeed, the case of satellite is not comparable. If you want a comparable case, it's similar to plane flying irregular, against common practice pattern over the public air space and collide with a rule-binding whatever jet. You know what, it's always the fault of the irregular flight.
Comparing the situation with highly questionable "accident" (comment depend on who you ask) is not justifiable.
Microsoft will not be able to get in bed with AOL/TW. This is crucial to MS control on TCP/IP.
Microsoft's main business is not on controlling internet, but selling it's software/service of Office/OS/etc. They are forced to be competitive on internet front, just not to lost it's monopoly status. On the other hand, AOL/TW is heavily on the content and connection provision. I see that there will be definitely a conflict if the control of protocols fall onto the hand of MS, and AOL/TW won't endorse it. Indeed, if AOL/TW is in a position to gain control, it would. Given the history, they both know about the intention of one another and their split is not going to reverse in forseeable future. Without AOL/TW endorsement, MS can't do much.
I haven't read the FDL, but I think, they could pursuade authors to make previous editions of the books they are selling to be released by FDL. In that way some of the people that can't access to bookstores (say you're in a developing countries without easy access to big bookstore...) can read about it, but even copy it won't hurt much on the existing version's sales. That's a good way to promote FDL. Of course, I prefer everything released in FDL, but we have to be realistic that some authors are reluctant on that.
The suggestion of that is just a form of only elites could make the decision.
Not everybody is resourceful enough to go voting. Say if Joe is so poor and he works in a 24-hours shop, with long shift that overlap the voting time, he doesn't have the chance at all. On the other hand, this is not much a problem for middle class workers.
To put those people that can't afford to vote into the class that can't make informed decision is irresponsible. I think, if we can, we should reduce this voting cost as much as possible. And how uninformed decisions could affect the results, if it's really random? It affects the results when it's not random.
The only concern that I have, for voting online, is the difficulty of cheating prevention. Voting in person and registration at the booth is an efficient way to detect where you're the person you are. But how do you check a vote's validity online as easy as checking your driver's license against their records by the officials?
Yes, he didn't do much research on HDTV and throw a lot of money in it, so what's the point of bashing him? That's what happen to an average user. Do you guys read the last line "Times staff writer Thomas H. Maugh II covers medicine"? He has the money to throw into it, I bet. And many of you guys would spend $$$ on drugs that you don't completely how they really works. If you get troubles by taking viagra, should this guy tell you, "obviously you didn't do much research on Viagra before you spend fortune in it."
Let's face it. I would be happy someone like this person that would spend fortune into new stuffs, get pissed, and tell everybody about it such that I, as a poor person, would not follow the same steps. At least, I don't have to do my little research of HDTV and know that I'd better to wait longer before I re-visit the issue later.
Lazy admin? How about we point out that, admins are lazy because Microsoft told everybody keeping these server running is just by few clicks: so every admin just use their brains in something else and neglecting all important aspects of the job.
I saw it the other day in supermarket, well, Chinese supermarket. Obviously they immigrate many Asians who like to drink Red Bull.
Note: I'm also an immigrant, and depend on coffee to survive the hard work of catching up in Canada. Maybe I should try Red Bull. Not with alcohol though.
This isn't something going wrong, people - it's the GPL working EXACTLY AS IT'S MEANT TO
Is it?
GPL is to protect the free distribution of information. It is only meaningful, in the process of distribution, any modification is known: GPL doesn't grant you permission if you distribute modified linux kernal code as the original. Otherwise, I can patch virus codes into it and kill the whole project easily.
Go read the GPL and intrepret it carefully. Use some common sense, please.
Even a good coffee shop will throw away coffee sitting on the warmer for some time, because it taste awful!!! Coffee will turn acidic and burnt under constant heat.
I have the feeling this Mr White is not happy because Redhat can't get into China market easily (by taking the existing customization patch) and made that comment.
It's only speculation, though. No evidence at all.
I have the feeling that this claim may not be fair to Chinese developers (Note: I'm a Chinese)
It would be better to find out the developers who violate the licenses. If you got modified version of software from Chinese developers, ask them to provide you the source if they haven't done so. Now, if they refuse, that's a real violation. Before someone have done that, the claim is not justified at all. I really want to see a case like that, and someone bring it to the court in Hongkong/China/Taiwan/etc.. and test the GPL over that side.
I also question why the Slashdot comment doesn't mention about the practice of RedFlat, that source is coming with the binaries. What a balanced comment!
If my memory is correct, nearly every country has limit on the number of coins you use in one payment. I know it is the case in Canada and UK, anyone knows about Germany?
I ain't working in software company, but I have read some literature so here's my speculation.
Small firms provide less training than large firms. Most people cite smaller budget as the reason. Some studies suggested something else. For example, because training is a joint investment (the company give up your working time, provide finacially support, and you lost your leisure hours), if you leave the firms earlier because of higher human capital, they lost. Small firms are less able to accomodate lost of workers. On the other hand, large firms are more willing to offer training to more workers, because of risk spreading.
Another argument is, because small firms are easier to monitor workers' productivity, they do not need training as a method to maintain the productivity. Large firms fail to monitor workers' productivity directly, may induce their workers into training as alternative of maintaining productivity.
I would say the fear for workers' departure after training is the major reason why companies do not provide training, especially those leading to certification (exception is if the certification of workers lead to better confidence from the customers, like accounting firms). Also, firm specific training is more likely to be employer support, and don't expect your employers will provide general skill training (another exception, is to get community support.)
If you want your boss to pay for your training, think about those factors and make them comfortable. That's my 2 cents.
As an well educated person who uses English as my secondary language, you may not aware that your opinion, "the ability to understand and apply the rules of English indicate a certain level of intelligence and education," could be an insult to people like me. Logically you did not imply people who wrote poor English lack intelligence and education, but I suspect that is the intention you would like to imply.
If I were you, I would have "put time and thought into what you wrote."
I'm using Sympatico DSL, which, I have 3 boxes running at the same time, using 3 IP, without paying additional cost. The nice thing is, I just need a hub to share the connection.
I have seen people move from Rogers@Home to Bell Sympatico HSE because of the instability of Rogers@Home (down whenever you have to do real work). Sympatico HSE is not much better, but it really is reliable (though it's slower.)
But on the other hand, like Ontario, they cut the hell of spendings on universities. Good professors are leaving to US, as they are not well paid at all in Canada. I don't think internet access can replace the existence of good professors in Canada.
I'm not saying government spending more is always good, but the wrong thing normally a government would do is to spend in the wrong place. If you want equality and equal opportunity, government's role is help making sure the free market is working. A competitive and free market can also achieve equality and equal opportunity, though normally more effective than a government can.
Given that it's so cold in winter and now cheaper broadband access, I guess more Canadians would stay in front of the computer and do less exercise. Sooner or later, more people would be getting too fat, and you know what, they will spend more on Hospitals. (Cutting down is not a solution anyway.)
That's the way they get rid of income inequality, compare to US, as the poor in US couldn't afford broadband, so they do more exercise and live longer, while the rich die sooner.
Take a look on how the adults in US government are bullying other countries, and it seems to me that bullying is rooted in the American culture. (Yes, I ain't an American, and always view the whole thing from outside...)
That's not unique to American though. There's some evidence that when a country get rich, bullying starts to appear more. Maybe that's a way to show who has the power. Or a way to protect the existing wealth before anybody in the weak side rise?
I don't know, but changing a culture is not an easy task, especially when you need to change the behaviour of adults first.
Without demand, there's nobody supplying. Violence entertainment is there because there's demand.
It seems many/.ers are quite skeptical to this new design.
True, it may not be suitable to a big city.
True, it may be slow if too many traffics merge.
True, it may be expensive to build.
But, it's energy efficient. I don't know, and I don't care much about environmental issue... I just know that if gasoline prices are 4 times higher than today's price, I will definitely switch to electric car. Given the trouble of electric car can't go too far, this is a nice and practical idea.
Running cost is usually more important than the initial outlay. And, infrastructure should be build for the future, not for now coz' it takes year to build.
Slashdot Mirror
are you saying,
lim IQ = 0
BSc->BA
I have the impression that gilroy was talking about the average. "This is only a general rule and of course varies tremendously in individuals." Maybe my English is too poor (it's my secondary language) to read your words wrong, but it seems that you try to refute gilroy's statement by using yourself as an example. From statistics point of view, your argument doesn't contradict to gilroy's statement.
I hate to say this, but it seems to me that you would not have this fatal flaw in your argument if you have had thought about that logically.
America doesn't produce a lot of scientific elites among Americans. There is significant portions of PhD students are from foriegn countries.
This is even worse, the whole education systems are not really producing. I have the feeling, the situation of scientific illiterates are getting worse (compare to before). There weren't many teachers with well training to teach science before, yet the situation now is worse than ever.
So, pay better to teachers could help, but there may be other reasons that students know less science. It is highly possible that developing a career in science does not get you as good life as you get an MBA. When everyone tells you that you just need to be able to ride certain wave of the rising bubble in the economy to get rich, you don't care what you should have learnt.
The purpose of patent is not promoting innovation, but promoting innovation when innovation is too little.
Problem of many innovations is the positive externality. Because the free market without patent fail to compensate the innovators for the goods an innovation done to others, the innovators lost incentive to innovate to the point that is optimal to the society. Patent is not to protect the benefits of the innovators. Patent is to protect the benefits of the society as a whole.
Monopoly is also sub-optimal. However, through the use of monopoly power from patent, innovators have the incentive to innovate more. The existence of patent length is to balance the social cost of monopoly and the social gain of innovation.
Now, the social cost of letting this monopoly on the AIDS drug stand is huge (the lost of lives of AIDS patients who would have stayed alive if they could buy those drug). The drug company has captured quite a lot of profits from it already. I would say that's enough for them to keep innovating. Don't you think it's time for the drugs to save more lives?
Is the fixed patent length good for any situation? The answer is definitely no. In some situation, letting the patent length shorter is better to the society as a whole. I'm afraid this is the case.
So stop fighting on the merit of keeping this patents or not. If you guys want to argue, argue how much gain to the society for saving those lives without the patents and how much lost to the society because of the discouragement in innovation.
There's a target Americans want desperately to hate. It was Russians during the cold war, and now it's Chinese.
I wouldn't say that Americans were wrong by sending spy plane, just I always want remind people what happen if the case reverse. Americans are not always right.
Indeed, the case of satellite is not comparable. If you want a comparable case, it's similar to plane flying irregular, against common practice pattern over the public air space and collide with a rule-binding whatever jet. You know what, it's always the fault of the irregular flight.
Comparing the situation with highly questionable "accident" (comment depend on who you ask) is not justifiable.
Microsoft will not be able to get in bed with AOL/TW. This is crucial to MS control on TCP/IP.
Microsoft's main business is not on controlling internet, but selling it's software/service of Office/OS/etc. They are forced to be competitive on internet front, just not to lost it's monopoly status. On the other hand, AOL/TW is heavily on the content and connection provision. I see that there will be definitely a conflict if the control of protocols fall onto the hand of MS, and AOL/TW won't endorse it. Indeed, if AOL/TW is in a position to gain control, it would. Given the history, they both know about the intention of one another and their split is not going to reverse in forseeable future. Without AOL/TW endorsement, MS can't do much.
I haven't read the FDL, but I think, they could pursuade authors to make previous editions of the books they are selling to be released by FDL. In that way some of the people that can't access to bookstores (say you're in a developing countries without easy access to big bookstore...) can read about it, but even copy it won't hurt much on the existing version's sales. That's a good way to promote FDL. Of course, I prefer everything released in FDL, but we have to be realistic that some authors are reluctant on that.
The suggestion of that is just a form of only elites could make the decision.
Not everybody is resourceful enough to go voting. Say if Joe is so poor and he works in a 24-hours shop, with long shift that overlap the voting time, he doesn't have the chance at all. On the other hand, this is not much a problem for middle class workers.
To put those people that can't afford to vote into the class that can't make informed decision is irresponsible. I think, if we can, we should reduce this voting cost as much as possible. And how uninformed decisions could affect the results, if it's really random? It affects the results when it's not random.
The only concern that I have, for voting online, is the difficulty of cheating prevention. Voting in person and registration at the booth is an efficient way to detect where you're the person you are. But how do you check a vote's validity online as easy as checking your driver's license against their records by the officials?
Yes, he didn't do much research on HDTV and throw a lot of money in it, so what's the point of bashing him? That's what happen to an average user. Do you guys read the last line "Times staff writer Thomas H. Maugh II covers medicine"? He has the money to throw into it, I bet. And many of you guys would spend $$$ on drugs that you don't completely how they really works. If you get troubles by taking viagra, should this guy tell you, "obviously you didn't do much research on Viagra before you spend fortune in it."
Let's face it. I would be happy someone like this person that would spend fortune into new stuffs, get pissed, and tell everybody about it such that I, as a poor person, would not follow the same steps. At least, I don't have to do my little research of HDTV and know that I'd better to wait longer before I re-visit the issue later.
Lazy admin? How about we point out that, admins are lazy because Microsoft told everybody keeping these server running is just by few clicks: so every admin just use their brains in something else and neglecting all important aspects of the job.
Canadian immigration policies are working!
I saw it the other day in supermarket, well, Chinese supermarket. Obviously they immigrate many Asians who like to drink Red Bull.
Note: I'm also an immigrant, and depend on coffee to survive the hard work of catching up in Canada. Maybe I should try Red Bull. Not with alcohol though.
Is it?
GPL is to protect the free distribution of information. It is only meaningful, in the process of distribution, any modification is known: GPL doesn't grant you permission if you distribute modified linux kernal code as the original. Otherwise, I can patch virus codes into it and kill the whole project easily.
Go read the GPL and intrepret it carefully. Use some common sense, please.
Even a good coffee shop will throw away coffee sitting on the warmer for some time, because it taste awful!!! Coffee will turn acidic and burnt under constant heat.
I have the feeling this Mr White is not happy because Redhat can't get into China market easily (by taking the existing customization patch) and made that comment.
It's only speculation, though. No evidence at all.
I have the feeling that this claim may not be fair to Chinese developers (Note: I'm a Chinese)
It would be better to find out the developers who violate the licenses. If you got modified version of software from Chinese developers, ask them to provide you the source if they haven't done so. Now, if they refuse, that's a real violation. Before someone have done that, the claim is not justified at all. I really want to see a case like that, and someone bring it to the court in Hongkong/China/Taiwan/etc.. and test the GPL over that side.
I also question why the Slashdot comment doesn't mention about the practice of RedFlat, that source is coming with the binaries. What a balanced comment!
If my memory is correct, nearly every country has limit on the number of coins you use in one payment. I know it is the case in Canada and UK, anyone knows about Germany?
But I think that spammers should stop spamming the USENET for a day in memory of such a great man.
I ain't working in software company, but I have read some literature so here's my speculation.
Small firms provide less training than large firms. Most people cite smaller budget as the reason. Some studies suggested something else. For example, because training is a joint investment (the company give up your working time, provide finacially support, and you lost your leisure hours), if you leave the firms earlier because of higher human capital, they lost. Small firms are less able to accomodate lost of workers. On the other hand, large firms are more willing to offer training to more workers, because of risk spreading.
Another argument is, because small firms are easier to monitor workers' productivity, they do not need training as a method to maintain the productivity. Large firms fail to monitor workers' productivity directly, may induce their workers into training as alternative of maintaining productivity.
I would say the fear for workers' departure after training is the major reason why companies do not provide training, especially those leading to certification (exception is if the certification of workers lead to better confidence from the customers, like accounting firms). Also, firm specific training is more likely to be employer support, and don't expect your employers will provide general skill training (another exception, is to get community support.)
If you want your boss to pay for your training, think about those factors and make them comfortable. That's my 2 cents.
If I were you, I would have "put time and thought into what you wrote."
I was depressed because it's long offline. Just managed to get some anti-depressants today and Slashdot is back online... damn, waste of money.
I'm using Sympatico DSL, which, I have 3 boxes running at the same time, using 3 IP, without paying additional cost. The nice thing is, I just need a hub to share the connection.
I have seen people move from Rogers@Home to Bell Sympatico HSE because of the instability of Rogers@Home (down whenever you have to do real work). Sympatico HSE is not much better, but it really is reliable (though it's slower.)
But on the other hand, like Ontario, they cut the hell of spendings on universities. Good professors are leaving to US, as they are not well paid at all in Canada. I don't think internet access can replace the existence of good professors in Canada.
I'm not saying government spending more is always good, but the wrong thing normally a government would do is to spend in the wrong place. If you want equality and equal opportunity, government's role is help making sure the free market is working. A competitive and free market can also achieve equality and equal opportunity, though normally more effective than a government can.
Given that it's so cold in winter and now cheaper broadband access, I guess more Canadians would stay in front of the computer and do less exercise. Sooner or later, more people would be getting too fat, and you know what, they will spend more on Hospitals. (Cutting down is not a solution anyway.)
That's the way they get rid of income inequality, compare to US, as the poor in US couldn't afford broadband, so they do more exercise and live longer, while the rich die sooner.
Take a look on how the adults in US government are bullying other countries, and it seems to me that bullying is rooted in the American culture. (Yes, I ain't an American, and always view the whole thing from outside...)
That's not unique to American though. There's some evidence that when a country get rich, bullying starts to appear more. Maybe that's a way to show who has the power. Or a way to protect the existing wealth before anybody in the weak side rise?
I don't know, but changing a culture is not an easy task, especially when you need to change the behaviour of adults first.
Without demand, there's nobody supplying. Violence entertainment is there because there's demand.
It seems many /.ers are quite skeptical to this new design.
True, it may not be suitable to a big city.
True, it may be slow if too many traffics merge.
True, it may be expensive to build.
But, it's energy efficient. I don't know, and I don't care much about environmental issue... I just know that if gasoline prices are 4 times higher than today's price, I will definitely switch to electric car. Given the trouble of electric car can't go too far, this is a nice and practical idea.
Running cost is usually more important than the initial outlay. And, infrastructure should be build for the future, not for now coz' it takes year to build.