Arguments from this point of view are always wrong. Liberty is the default position. Anyone advocating the opposite should be obliged to justify their position.
Unless you are suggesting that the government not force the RepublicanParty to allow anyone to vote in their primary, which would be the position of liberty, which requires no justification, as it is the default assumption.
If the majority of patents are anything but stupid, why is prior art such a big deal? Why is "first to publish" such a race? If a creation is truly novel, then prior art or simultaneous publication should be an amazingly improbable newsworthy coincidence.
Patents are based on the idea that what you invent is non-obvious. I guess no one ever told most of the anti-free-competition crowd, but no matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter. Nothing you create is non-obvious to everyone else. You simply aren't that magnificent of a person, no matter what the patent office tells you. If we really wanted to enforce non-obvious patents, there would be a law that no patent using technology created in the last 20 years is allowed to be used in a patent.
But that's not why patents continue. The reason patents survive today is because fake-entrepreneurs want to make money by buying a piece of the economy and suing anyone who competes with them. Listen to any meeting for an inventor looking for investors. The #1 make-it-or-break-it question is "have you secured IP rights for your product?". If the answer is "no", then consider yourself out of luck. Entrepreneurs don't want the trouble of having to compete. They want to buy a piece of the market, and sue anyone who dares to compete. Running a company and keeping up to date with progress is too troublesome.
Entrepreneurs used to be well informed businessman and managers. Now they are just Barons and Lords who use force to stifle competition.
Engineers hate patents. Software designers hate patents. Jonas Salk, the hero who eradicated polio saved a good portion of the world by avoiding patents. The only people like patents are lazy investors, and that's only because they profit by crippling progress.
I'm surprised to read someone who realizes that taxing a corporation is just a hidden income tax. Well said.
I disagree that there are good reasons for the Federals to tax corporations, because I recommend the Feds only being allowed to tax states directly, in proportion to their population and no other taxes, exemptions, subsidies or anything.
Since some people feel let their moral affections and prejudice against rich individuals (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) cloud their judgement , I'm going to explain what's going to happen and why.
(1) EU Government makes a big deal about "cracking down" on rich individuals because it makes the general public happy and the general public doesn't bother to double check anything anyway
(2) Big ceremony with lots of speeches
(3) Meeting between large companies representatives and lawmaker's staff. They have one topic of discussion: "How can we lower your tax burden while making it look like we are raising it?" There are two main reasons for this (a) They don't want to lose campaign funding from the companies (b) They don't want the companies moving even more of their operations overseas (your personal morality be damned, no one who matters cares at all) and leaving unemployment and a net lower tax revenue (c) Rich people spend a larger proportion of their income on economic progress like starting new companies, you spend your money on beer and video games
(4) They will come up with a brilliant idea like larger taxes on repatriating corporate money (larger companies simply won't repatriate directly, but send the money to bank accounts first in the form of income) or a tax on company growth that sounds like it only affects large companies but only serves to destroy new competitors, or something brilliant like raising corporate income on income reported locally (except they already did that but got caught so they'll find a new trick).
In the end, if the game plays out correctly, low income individuals will still payer higher taxes, large companies will pay less taxes, but it will sound a lot like the opposite is occurring. You'll be happy and the economy will be slightly less screwed than if we listened to you and made companies actually pay 30% - 40% of their income directly to the treasury trough.
...competition is supposed to bring prices down. Apple is the clearest example of how patents awarded for every stupid idea are tools to keep that from happening.
It's not the unbounded tape that makes turing machines unrealistic so much as the constant time memory access. It's conceivable that we could build a machine that grows as it computes, and so has no upperbound on memory size. It isn't conceivable that the entire memory can be accessed from a common point without at least logarithmic overhead.
It's a bit of an underhanded way to pass to pretend to be someone who doesn't speak English natively. The point of the test is to have a conversation for 5 minutes, not 5 minutes of "oh I can't understand you because I'm from Ukraine".
Why would you have a $300 car payment if you make minimum wage? You shouldn't be buying a financed new car, you should have bought a cheap used car. Why would you have a $300 student loan if you make minimum wage? That defeats the entire purpose of college education. Suppose you fill the tank up twice per month at $60 dollars each. That means you are spending $12.66 per day on food. That's a hell of a lot of money for food for someone on minimum wage. $500 mortgage? Roommates and an apartment and you can be spending $300 or less. Internet, utilities, trash, etc, all can be split between roommates.
Nobody making minimum wage should be spending money like you describe.
I see tons of EV cars in California. Leafs are everywhere.
If Tesla can make a full-sized sedan with a 265 mile range (85KWh battery) for $73,570 while averaging a 25% profit margin there's no reason why Fiat shouldn't be able to make a profit
Patents.
Perhaps they should...
...not be forced into an industry that they don't want to be in?
It makes sense that the interpretation of the original ancient statement could have been a limiting one, but if I simply believe you without any reference, wouldn't that just be "relying on what I've been told" ?
NO. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. If you believe that using or selling drugs should be legal, no amount of prison time should ever be used in a "well if you confess to believing X we'll go easy on you". This is the shit that the catholic church did to Galileo. We don't need to be repeating it, no matter how holy you think US law might be.
- protection of society
NO. The only person responsible for your protection is you. No jury should ever feel like "well he might not be guilty, but I'm going to vote guilty anyway just to protect society". The juror should be thinking "he might not be guilty, and if I'm wrong then it's not the court's responsibility anyway".
- the punishment aspect
NO. We do not enact "eye for an eye law".
The ideal purpose for prisons, as much as you might not like it, is to protect prisoners from the wrath of those who have been hurt. Rather than a mob hanging someone for stealing a horse, we insist on them having a trial and an appropriate "time out" long enough for everyone to stop wanting to kill the offender. There can always be other reasons, and a mix of pros and cons, but this is the main reason. Prisons create order in society by creating equal responses for equal crimes, rather than random mob anger.
They probably wouldn't be produced publicly, but the real security that comes from this will be the NSAs ability to terrorize people with their capabilities.
"The document is identified as a training tool used in an in-house training exercise where students learn about the basic concepts of military plans and order development through a fictional training scenario,"
Fictional? Maybe that's just what the government wants you to think.
This should be a clue to everyone how important ease of use is. I know that skilled computer users love following 5 pages of directions linked between 8 different websites written by 4 different people to accomplish 1 simple task (looking at you Linux), but for most people, that's a pain in the ass.
Name 1 way to back up her emails and pictures on a remote server that requires fewer mouse clicks than forwarding them herself with email. "I've tried to explain how things should be done" -- first rule of UI design, "don't make me think".
Insightful? Really? I completely agree with parent that public education is pathetic (look up the Harvard 1869 entrance exam if you don't believe me, and realize there was no wikipedia or calculators for those expected to pass).
But "when... half got so poor an education that they can't distinguish between truth and bullshit" then what? What was it like before? When was this transition?
Are you trying to suggest that a government funded education run by government employees is the solution to teaching the population to tighten the reigns on the government? God I hope not. Or perhaps you've found out a way to educate people who don't want to be educated, and teach them to distinguish "truth and bullshit"? Well maybe we can create a government agency to decide what is truth and what is bullshit, and have it inform the school system.
If you are looking for blame or solutions in the school system, well I wish you luck with that. You won't be the only person trying to put his own political views into the schools, children are very impressionable, it can be very effective. I had quite a few teachers who tried to teach me to distinguish "truth" and "bullshit", but I was a very bad student, I really only liked math anyway.
If you want bicycles to stay out of the way of traffic, put in bike lanes. It's not that hard. Every county in the US should be making that a requirement for all new roads.
Really, what are the chances of "accidentally" flying a drone into a commercial airliner? Is it more or less than the chances of a blind man "accidentally" sniping someone 700 meters away?
...for those who haven't seen 10000 hours of anime (shame on you), JIJI is japanese slang for a man old enough to be a grandfather. It's like saying "old fart".
40K people died of laws and organizations preventing them from getting food. There is enough food for everyone, there is enough will for people to provide for themselves and those that can't. This isn't 400BC anymore, people die of starvation because of bad policy, not because natural limitations. I'm not saying we shouldn't voluntarily feed them, but feeding them fixes nothing and by itself can actually make the problem worse. It's like giving someone painkillers instead of medicine.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are actually suggesting that a person suffers panic attacks in the perceived presence of something, then -phobia is not a correct postfix.
...But why should X be allowed to Y...
Arguments from this point of view are always wrong. Liberty is the default position. Anyone advocating the opposite should be obliged to justify their position.
Unless you are suggesting that the government not force the RepublicanParty to allow anyone to vote in their primary, which would be the position of liberty, which requires no justification, as it is the default assumption.
If the majority of patents are anything but stupid, why is prior art such a big deal? Why is "first to publish" such a race? If a creation is truly novel, then prior art or simultaneous publication should be an amazingly improbable newsworthy coincidence.
Patents are based on the idea that what you invent is non-obvious. I guess no one ever told most of the anti-free-competition crowd, but no matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter. Nothing you create is non-obvious to everyone else. You simply aren't that magnificent of a person, no matter what the patent office tells you. If we really wanted to enforce non-obvious patents, there would be a law that no patent using technology created in the last 20 years is allowed to be used in a patent.
But that's not why patents continue. The reason patents survive today is because fake-entrepreneurs want to make money by buying a piece of the economy and suing anyone who competes with them. Listen to any meeting for an inventor looking for investors. The #1 make-it-or-break-it question is "have you secured IP rights for your product?". If the answer is "no", then consider yourself out of luck. Entrepreneurs don't want the trouble of having to compete. They want to buy a piece of the market, and sue anyone who dares to compete. Running a company and keeping up to date with progress is too troublesome.
Entrepreneurs used to be well informed businessman and managers. Now they are just Barons and Lords who use force to stifle competition.
Engineers hate patents. Software designers hate patents. Jonas Salk, the hero who eradicated polio saved a good portion of the world by avoiding patents. The only people like patents are lazy investors, and that's only because they profit by crippling progress.
I'm surprised to read someone who realizes that taxing a corporation is just a hidden income tax. Well said.
I disagree that there are good reasons for the Federals to tax corporations, because I recommend the Feds only being allowed to tax states directly, in proportion to their population and no other taxes, exemptions, subsidies or anything.
LOL...three main reasons...
Since some people feel let their moral affections and prejudice against rich individuals (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) cloud their judgement , I'm going to explain what's going to happen and why.
(1) EU Government makes a big deal about "cracking down" on rich individuals because it makes the general public happy and the general public doesn't bother to double check anything anyway
(2) Big ceremony with lots of speeches
(3) Meeting between large companies representatives and lawmaker's staff. They have one topic of discussion: "How can we lower your tax burden while making it look like we are raising it?" There are two main reasons for this (a) They don't want to lose campaign funding from the companies (b) They don't want the companies moving even more of their operations overseas (your personal morality be damned, no one who matters cares at all) and leaving unemployment and a net lower tax revenue (c) Rich people spend a larger proportion of their income on economic progress like starting new companies, you spend your money on beer and video games
(4) They will come up with a brilliant idea like larger taxes on repatriating corporate money (larger companies simply won't repatriate directly, but send the money to bank accounts first in the form of income) or a tax on company growth that sounds like it only affects large companies but only serves to destroy new competitors, or something brilliant like raising corporate income on income reported locally (except they already did that but got caught so they'll find a new trick).
In the end, if the game plays out correctly, low income individuals will still payer higher taxes, large companies will pay less taxes, but it will sound a lot like the opposite is occurring. You'll be happy and the economy will be slightly less screwed than if we listened to you and made companies actually pay 30% - 40% of their income directly to the treasury trough.
...competition is supposed to bring prices down. Apple is the clearest example of how patents awarded for every stupid idea are tools to keep that from happening.
I completely agree.
It's not the unbounded tape that makes turing machines unrealistic so much as the constant time memory access. It's conceivable that we could build a machine that grows as it computes, and so has no upperbound on memory size. It isn't conceivable that the entire memory can be accessed from a common point without at least logarithmic overhead.
It's a bit of an underhanded way to pass to pretend to be someone who doesn't speak English natively. The point of the test is to have a conversation for 5 minutes, not 5 minutes of "oh I can't understand you because I'm from Ukraine".
Why would you have a $300 car payment if you make minimum wage? You shouldn't be buying a financed new car, you should have bought a cheap used car. Why would you have a $300 student loan if you make minimum wage? That defeats the entire purpose of college education. Suppose you fill the tank up twice per month at $60 dollars each. That means you are spending $12.66 per day on food. That's a hell of a lot of money for food for someone on minimum wage. $500 mortgage? Roommates and an apartment and you can be spending $300 or less. Internet, utilities, trash, etc, all can be split between roommates.
Nobody making minimum wage should be spending money like you describe.
How's Google supposed to do that? Pay girls to pretend to be interested in something they're not?
Paying girls to be pretend to be interested in something they're not is the oldest profession in the world...
I see tons of EV cars in California. Leafs are everywhere.
If Tesla can make a full-sized sedan with a 265 mile range (85KWh battery) for $73,570 while averaging a 25% profit margin there's no reason why Fiat shouldn't be able to make a profit
Patents.
Perhaps they should...
...not be forced into an industry that they don't want to be in?
It makes sense that the interpretation of the original ancient statement could have been a limiting one, but if I simply believe you without any reference, wouldn't that just be "relying on what I've been told" ?
Imprisonment has three purposes:
- rehabilitation
NO. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. If you believe that using or selling drugs should be legal, no amount of prison time should ever be used in a "well if you confess to believing X we'll go easy on you". This is the shit that the catholic church did to Galileo. We don't need to be repeating it, no matter how holy you think US law might be.
- protection of society
NO. The only person responsible for your protection is you. No jury should ever feel like "well he might not be guilty, but I'm going to vote guilty anyway just to protect society". The juror should be thinking "he might not be guilty, and if I'm wrong then it's not the court's responsibility anyway".
- the punishment aspect
NO. We do not enact "eye for an eye law".
The ideal purpose for prisons, as much as you might not like it, is to protect prisoners from the wrath of those who have been hurt. Rather than a mob hanging someone for stealing a horse, we insist on them having a trial and an appropriate "time out" long enough for everyone to stop wanting to kill the offender. There can always be other reasons, and a mix of pros and cons, but this is the main reason. Prisons create order in society by creating equal responses for equal crimes, rather than random mob anger.
Japan and Germany turned out "pretty well" because of the Japanese and the Germans, not because of foreigners.
They probably wouldn't be produced publicly, but the real security that comes from this will be the NSAs ability to terrorize people with their capabilities.
RTFA
"The document is identified as a training tool used in an in-house training exercise where students learn about the basic concepts of military plans and order development through a fictional training scenario,"
Fictional? Maybe that's just what the government wants you to think.
When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)...
If a person was leveling a gun at me, and known to be in possession of pain killers, I probably wouldn't shoot him in the leg.
This should be a clue to everyone how important ease of use is. I know that skilled computer users love following 5 pages of directions linked between 8 different websites written by 4 different people to accomplish 1 simple task (looking at you Linux), but for most people, that's a pain in the ass.
Name 1 way to back up her emails and pictures on a remote server that requires fewer mouse clicks than forwarding them herself with email. "I've tried to explain how things should be done" -- first rule of UI design, "don't make me think".
Insightful? Really? I completely agree with parent that public education is pathetic (look up the Harvard 1869 entrance exam if you don't believe me, and realize there was no wikipedia or calculators for those expected to pass).
But "when ... half got so poor an education that they can't distinguish between truth and bullshit" then what? What was it like before? When was this transition?
Are you trying to suggest that a government funded education run by government employees is the solution to teaching the population to tighten the reigns on the government? God I hope not. Or perhaps you've found out a way to educate people who don't want to be educated, and teach them to distinguish "truth and bullshit"? Well maybe we can create a government agency to decide what is truth and what is bullshit, and have it inform the school system.
If you are looking for blame or solutions in the school system, well I wish you luck with that. You won't be the only person trying to put his own political views into the schools, children are very impressionable, it can be very effective. I had quite a few teachers who tried to teach me to distinguish "truth" and "bullshit", but I was a very bad student, I really only liked math anyway.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
Holy shit.
And
If you want bicycles to stay out of the way of traffic, put in bike lanes. It's not that hard. Every county in the US should be making that a requirement for all new roads.
Really, what are the chances of "accidentally" flying a drone into a commercial airliner? Is it more or less than the chances of a blind man "accidentally" sniping someone 700 meters away?
...for those who haven't seen 10000 hours of anime (shame on you), JIJI is japanese slang for a man old enough to be a grandfather. It's like saying "old fart".
40K people died of laws and organizations preventing them from getting food. There is enough food for everyone, there is enough will for people to provide for themselves and those that can't. This isn't 400BC anymore, people die of starvation because of bad policy, not because natural limitations. I'm not saying we shouldn't voluntarily feed them, but feeding them fixes nothing and by itself can actually make the problem worse. It's like giving someone painkillers instead of medicine.
Would mod you up but I already posted.