At most intersections ambulances slow down anyways. Either because there are a bunch of cars there who are having difficulty getting out of the way, or because they should slowdown just to be safe.
In the meantime, don't do anything (or talk about anything on the phone) which could get you sent to jail.
You are now completely protected. No need to do something silly like route all your calls through Sweden. Just fight to get laws changed. Routing your calls through Sweden doesn't actually help the situation (unless of course you actually ARE doing something illegal).
I'm not defending the guy, but it seems quite telling that none of the students or families wanted to press charges. If some asshole burned my kid with a crucifix I sure as hell would press charges. Something else was going on there. I guarantee if my high school physics teacher had caused physical harm to anyone, she would have been in jail by sundown.
To discussions of literature containing the word "fuck"?
Indeed... it would seem that this law would make most courses in modern literature null and void. If the teacher can't say the words, then certainly it follows that the curriculum cannot contain books which contain the words. This would also seem to prohibit all anatomy, sexual/gender studies, much of biology, most of film studies, etc etc...
That's the point. It's just as idiotic as software patents. Even more so, because it's not actually even patented.
I call into question any contract which states that you can't use your own personal knowledge once you leave a company. That's just like those silly non-compete clauses which won't hold in court if you change geographical regions. A non-compete clause can't prevent you from working everywhere on the planet, just like a Wall Street company can't prevent you from developing an algorithm for another company somewhere else on the planet.
I'm no lawyer, but I have a hard time believing there are actually laws in place that prevent you from exercising un-patented knowledge just because some company considers it "theirs".
I agree there is nothing illegal about walking out and reproducing algorithms you have learned.
If you really understand and can reproduce the entirety of some Wall Street company's HFT codebase from memory, you deserve to be rich.
Problem is, that's alot of code, and the people smart enough to reproduce it probably don't care enough to do this.
Note that the definition is chronological, therefore the claim in the above example is indeed that god does not exist, as the churches claim came first.
It did? That doesn't seem possible. At some point there had to have been somebody who came along and said "There is a god!". Before them, there was no concept of god. Therefore the lack of god is the null hypothesis; god's existence is the alternative, which must be proven. This is only logical; as one of the tenets of the null is that one can never prove it. This is clear, since it is impossible to prove that there is no god. It is certainly possible, on the other hand, to prove that there IS a god (say, by god appearing and performing some miracle).
To date, no evidence has been presented which disproves the null hypothesis (of there being no god).
One is free to believe in their alternative hypothesis of choice, but they must understand that, by definition, theirs cannot be the null, and therefore the burden of proof is on them, rather then on those who stick to the null hypothesis (which again, by definition, CANNOT be proved).
Your church analogy fails since the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. The Church makes some pretty "crazy" statements, it is up to them to prove that they are right, not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake?
Depends on the mistake. If a mechanic replaces my pads/rotors, and then a few days later my brakes don't work, causing me to get in a deadly accident, then yes.
If on the other hand, a mechanic services my brakes, and then my steering fails, then no, of course they're not to blame.
Should mechanics need to have malpractice insurance?
Mechanic liability insurance does actually exist, and would be a smart thing to get. Then again, if the mechanics actions are deemed criminal neglect... insurance won't save them from jailtime.
Shit like this is exactly why we have a CYA attitude in every organization, everywhere.
You mean having to take responsibility for your actions? Accept the consequences of your deeds? What do you propose as an alternative? Accept that it was just a "mistake"? Intent can mitigate some of the punishment, but can't remove it completely. The alternative is a world without repercussions for your actions.
Most scientific research, especially pure science, is paid for by the government, and always has been. There is very little incentive for business to conduct pure science research. Scientists have almost always been "starving artists".
No, you misunderstand me. Gold is no less fake a currency than Federal Reserve Notes. Gold is worthless. It's value is only determined by demand for it. Just like the value of Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy was killed precisely because he didn't want to use fake money that could be manipulated by a global banking cartel. So they got rid of him and put Nixon in place instead, who established the fiat money system and started selling off the country to China.
I know exactly what you mean about the tube TVs. I've gotten used to it now, but it used to amaze me that other people couldn't tell the TV was on when it had the "black screen". The sound was so obvious to me, it was like they were saying they couldn't tell if a car engine was running.
We have created a situation where scientists are now a welfare group on the government dole.
We have? Hasn't this always been the case, unless you go all the way back to say the 18th or 17th century, when the only people who could be scientists were rich nobles (since they had the time and the money)? I see very little wrong with scientists being a "welfare" group on the government dole. Scientists paid by the government are actually pretty cheap. The projects they ask for might be expensive, but you can hardly blame them for that. It's not their fault hardware costs what it does. Scientists, just like other "welfare recipients" aren't living extravagant lifestyles.
If they were really smart, they'd say "Screw this" and cut themselves off from the foreign system. Of course, they know they're too small to make that viable, but they should do it, just because the austerity measures forced upon them are going to cause the same harm.
That's an interesting thought, but I really think "austerity measures" are preferable to "mass starvation". Very few countries (especially in Europe) are self-sustaining anymore. Cutting yourself out of the global system could have some pretty terrible consequences. It could also reinvigorate your population and jump start your economy. It would be an interesting experiment... but a very risky one.
You need to restructure your argument. Stop saying that we need to tax everyone. We already DO tax everyone.
It seems that what we need is to clarify what the effective tax rate of everyone is. This is quite difficult to do, due to the Federal nature of the US government. There are many different levels of government (National, State, County, Local) applying many different taxes (Income, Sales, Property, etc...).
I agree that knowledge of their exact total tax rate (and the rates of others) would affect voters. Just stop spewing this nonsense that we need to tax "everyone" at "some" rate. Everyone is already taxed at some rate. Before we can have a meaningful discussion, we need to establish what actual tax rates are paid, and to whom. Income taxes are simply not the primary form of taxation for a large percentage of the population.
I draw the line at abstraction -- something which is completely abstract should be beyond the reach of the patent system
Fine, but I would argue that software processes are no more abstract than chemical processes. Again, one deals with performing certain actions on chemicals in a certain way, while the other deals with performing certain actions on electrons in a certain way. If software is math, then so is a chemical process.
Software controls how matter should be controlled, just as a chemical process does. Just because that matter is much smaller doesn't change the fact that something physical is actually occurring.
Software is exactly like a chemical process, just with a general purpose computer instead of a general purpose chemistry set.
There is no set of equations or software program that will actually cause crude oil to become gasoline.
This is a straw man argument. There is also no chemical process that will allow me to check my email. That doesn't mean that chemical processes aren't processes. All this argument proves is that chemical processes are different than software processes because they deal with chemicals, rather than electrical signals. No kidding.
By this logic you can patent a work of fiction as a process of arranging letters on a printing press plate.
Actually, I would say that the process patents for chemical processes implies this. It certainly fits the criteria many here have posted of working with physical objects.
The problem is that software is purely abstract.
No, I think the problem is rather that we haven't found a good way to make patents apply to programs running on general purpose computers.
processes that are not truly mechanical -- for example, processes involving complicated chemistry. That is fine, it is certainly in the spirit of the patent system
I'm not saying I like software patents, but I fail to see how a process that involves complicated chemistry is any less "math" than software.
It seems that they're both simply algorithms. One deals with how you control chemicals, the other with how you control electrons.
I guess all I'm really asking is how you can justify process patents, but not software patents? Are you saying that software is not a process?
Actually, most stock options are taxed as regular income when you exercise them.
ISO options aren't, but even then he'd have to wait a year to exercise the options if he wanted to avoid short-term capital gains taxes (which are the same as income taxes).
Slashdot Mirror
At most intersections ambulances slow down anyways. Either because there are a bunch of cars there who are having difficulty getting out of the way, or because they should slowdown just to be safe.
In the meantime, don't do anything (or talk about anything on the phone) which could get you sent to jail.
You are now completely protected. No need to do something silly like route all your calls through Sweden. Just fight to get laws changed. Routing your calls through Sweden doesn't actually help the situation (unless of course you actually ARE doing something illegal).
Actually, it does apply to public universities.
I'm not defending the guy, but it seems quite telling that none of the students or families wanted to press charges. If some asshole burned my kid with a crucifix I sure as hell would press charges. Something else was going on there. I guarantee if my high school physics teacher had caused physical harm to anyone, she would have been in jail by sundown.
To discussions of literature containing the word "fuck"?
Indeed... it would seem that this law would make most courses in modern literature null and void. If the teacher can't say the words, then certainly it follows that the curriculum cannot contain books which contain the words. This would also seem to prohibit all anatomy, sexual/gender studies, much of biology, most of film studies, etc etc...
I call into question any contract which states that you can't use your own personal knowledge once you leave a company. That's just like those silly non-compete clauses which won't hold in court if you change geographical regions. A non-compete clause can't prevent you from working everywhere on the planet, just like a Wall Street company can't prevent you from developing an algorithm for another company somewhere else on the planet.
I'm no lawyer, but I have a hard time believing there are actually laws in place that prevent you from exercising un-patented knowledge just because some company considers it "theirs".
Problem is, that's alot of code, and the people smart enough to reproduce it probably don't care enough to do this.
Note that the definition is chronological, therefore the claim in the above example is indeed that god does not exist, as the churches claim came first.
It did? That doesn't seem possible. At some point there had to have been somebody who came along and said "There is a god!". Before them, there was no concept of god. Therefore the lack of god is the null hypothesis; god's existence is the alternative, which must be proven. This is only logical; as one of the tenets of the null is that one can never prove it. This is clear, since it is impossible to prove that there is no god. It is certainly possible, on the other hand, to prove that there IS a god (say, by god appearing and performing some miracle).
To date, no evidence has been presented which disproves the null hypothesis (of there being no god).
One is free to believe in their alternative hypothesis of choice, but they must understand that, by definition, theirs cannot be the null, and therefore the burden of proof is on them, rather then on those who stick to the null hypothesis (which again, by definition, CANNOT be proved).
Your church analogy fails since the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. The Church makes some pretty "crazy" statements, it is up to them to prove that they are right, not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake?
Depends on the mistake. If a mechanic replaces my pads/rotors, and then a few days later my brakes don't work, causing me to get in a deadly accident, then yes.
If on the other hand, a mechanic services my brakes, and then my steering fails, then no, of course they're not to blame.
Should mechanics need to have malpractice insurance?
Mechanic liability insurance does actually exist, and would be a smart thing to get. Then again, if the mechanics actions are deemed criminal neglect... insurance won't save them from jailtime.
Shit like this is exactly why we have a CYA attitude in every organization, everywhere.
You mean having to take responsibility for your actions? Accept the consequences of your deeds? What do you propose as an alternative? Accept that it was just a "mistake"? Intent can mitigate some of the punishment, but can't remove it completely. The alternative is a world without repercussions for your actions.
I bet if you said these documents come from "Anonymous" and that Assange licked them they would be on the front page of CNN.
Most scientific research, especially pure science, is paid for by the government, and always has been. There is very little incentive for business to conduct pure science research. Scientists have almost always been "starving artists".
Kennedy was killed precisely because he didn't want to use fake money that could be manipulated by a global banking cartel. So they got rid of him and put Nixon in place instead, who established the fiat money system and started selling off the country to China.
lol. Right...
As long as we can use it to pay bills, I'm fine with it. Get it in your head already, ALL money is "pretend" as you put it.
I know exactly what you mean about the tube TVs. I've gotten used to it now, but it used to amaze me that other people couldn't tell the TV was on when it had the "black screen". The sound was so obvious to me, it was like they were saying they couldn't tell if a car engine was running.
We have created a situation where scientists are now a welfare group on the government dole.
We have? Hasn't this always been the case, unless you go all the way back to say the 18th or 17th century, when the only people who could be scientists were rich nobles (since they had the time and the money)? I see very little wrong with scientists being a "welfare" group on the government dole. Scientists paid by the government are actually pretty cheap. The projects they ask for might be expensive, but you can hardly blame them for that. It's not their fault hardware costs what it does. Scientists, just like other "welfare recipients" aren't living extravagant lifestyles.
If they were really smart, they'd say "Screw this" and cut themselves off from the foreign system. Of course, they know they're too small to make that viable, but they should do it, just because the austerity measures forced upon them are going to cause the same harm.
That's an interesting thought, but I really think "austerity measures" are preferable to "mass starvation". Very few countries (especially in Europe) are self-sustaining anymore. Cutting yourself out of the global system could have some pretty terrible consequences. It could also reinvigorate your population and jump start your economy. It would be an interesting experiment... but a very risky one.
It seems that what we need is to clarify what the effective tax rate of everyone is. This is quite difficult to do, due to the Federal nature of the US government. There are many different levels of government (National, State, County, Local) applying many different taxes (Income, Sales, Property, etc...).
I agree that knowledge of their exact total tax rate (and the rates of others) would affect voters. Just stop spewing this nonsense that we need to tax "everyone" at "some" rate. Everyone is already taxed at some rate. Before we can have a meaningful discussion, we need to establish what actual tax rates are paid, and to whom. Income taxes are simply not the primary form of taxation for a large percentage of the population.
People in general take out much more in benefits than they ever paid in (Ponzi Scheme).
If that was the definition of "Ponzi Scheme" then I think the term would have a much more positive connotation, and people would LOVE "Ponzi Schemes".
I draw the line at abstraction -- something which is completely abstract should be beyond the reach of the patent system
Fine, but I would argue that software processes are no more abstract than chemical processes. Again, one deals with performing certain actions on chemicals in a certain way, while the other deals with performing certain actions on electrons in a certain way. If software is math, then so is a chemical process.
Software controls how matter should be controlled, just as a chemical process does. Just because that matter is much smaller doesn't change the fact that something physical is actually occurring.
Software is exactly like a chemical process, just with a general purpose computer instead of a general purpose chemistry set.
There is no set of equations or software program that will actually cause crude oil to become gasoline.
This is a straw man argument. There is also no chemical process that will allow me to check my email. That doesn't mean that chemical processes aren't processes. All this argument proves is that chemical processes are different than software processes because they deal with chemicals, rather than electrical signals. No kidding.
By this logic you can patent a work of fiction as a process of arranging letters on a printing press plate.
Actually, I would say that the process patents for chemical processes implies this. It certainly fits the criteria many here have posted of working with physical objects.
The problem is that software is purely abstract.
No, I think the problem is rather that we haven't found a good way to make patents apply to programs running on general purpose computers.
processes that are not truly mechanical -- for example, processes involving complicated chemistry. That is fine, it is certainly in the spirit of the patent system
I'm not saying I like software patents, but I fail to see how a process that involves complicated chemistry is any less "math" than software.
It seems that they're both simply algorithms. One deals with how you control chemicals, the other with how you control electrons.
I guess all I'm really asking is how you can justify process patents, but not software patents? Are you saying that software is not a process?
Whoops, meant he'd have to wait a year to SELL the options
ISO options aren't, but even then he'd have to wait a year to exercise the options if he wanted to avoid short-term capital gains taxes (which are the same as income taxes).
You, as an investor, now pay that tax TIMES the capital gains tax.
You say that as if it's a bad thing... You do realize that 15% TIMES 15% is less than 15%, right? That's also not how it works, at all, anyways.
You are an idiot... you don't even understand basic arithmetic, why should anyone trust your "insights" into what makes an economy successful???