Sick or not, intellectually he's spot on. Reread his concerns about US and war and taxes.
Then pretend you're a large scale fraudster with control over (literally) trillions of dollars, and key control points peppered throughout US government. Then consider how YOU would design and run a large scale fraud (Commons Fraud). Then consider how YOU would use your government control points to fleece unwitting tax payers out of billions and trillions of dollars per year.
Perhaps you see Brandon Raub's concerns. If not, you're an example of when, why, and how democracy fails. In theory, every patriotic citizen should be deathly concerned that democracy has been turned on its head to use as a vehicle for overwhelming fraud.
Brandon Raub is concerned, but you're not. Really? Who's nuts?
Also kudos to Brandon Raub for his psychological fortitude. Soldiers, military families, and military friends are all very susceptible to the state of denial about war corruption because they are likely to have lost close ones to such crime. That's a heavy and for some insurmountable emotional and psychological burden to overcome with intellect. Since these frauds typically involve going to war unnecessarily, Brandon Raub has already transcended the typical emotional, patriotic, psychological trap of war veteran victims (and their families and friends).
Ditto the war veteran actors and consultants on movies like "The Green Zone" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Zone_(film)].
Casualties to fraudster wars are horribly tragic victims of terribly predatory faceless fraud run abusing overwhelming government power. So, the fact that a military veteran (Brandon) has transcended this psychological trap speaks to his intellectual stamina. Is he crazy? His friends don't think so. Even the ones who are military veterans, but you do?
About 911, Raub points out that a building fell down all on its own. Until you (or someone) could explain that glaring incongruity definitively, don't say he's nuts for calling 911 an inside job. 911 adds up far more likely as an inside job courtesy a US intelligence agent (Osama bin Laden as anti-Russian agent repurposed as scape goat). Recall 911 launched several meaningless and misguided wars with HUGE impact on USA debt --- a basic money laundering / extortion / embezzlement scheme from American taxpayer wallets to stracketeer bank accounts. That's all Brandon Raub is pointing out... and he's not alone.
So, next time you hear that the 911 wars were a farce, and that 911 was more than likely an inside job, think twice. When you recall that the Bush family is at the heart of several election rigging schemes, think twice. When you consider that BushLeague family and associates installed Supreme Court Justices who are central to the most ludicrous SCOTUS opinions in the nation's history (including GWBush reelection as President), think twice. When you consider GWBush started a war (in retrospect) on total pretense (e.g., see movie "The Green Zone" with Matt Damon for docufiction of what must have happened regarding WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction farce) on the ground in Iraq), think twice. And in case you didn't know that the Bush family has been linked to the similar behavior and motive for WWII (financing Nazi Germany war machine), i.e., across multiple generations, think twice.
Once you consider all that, it makes perfect sense that the Bush family would have an out of country (somewhere in South America) family compound for when all the proverbial shit hits the fan. Because when you put 2+2 together, some superficially crazy shit starts to make perfect sense. Which is probably why Brandon Raub says we're headed for a revolution.
You see, when democracy (or any government) breaks down --- a growing number of citizens realize their government is a vehicle for fraud and there's NOTHING we can do about it --- it's just a matter of time until a critical mass of knowledge spreads and ignites. History repeats itself, and our "democracy
Government in bed with... military industrial complex (Cheney) Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth. Government in bed with... Wall St. financial collapse + Wall St.'s "Mortgage Bailout" and highway robbery of the tax dollar. Government in bed with... Journalism government "tuned" journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence. Dilution of Common Rights & Principles more Plutonomics (See Michael Moore's film, "Capitalism: A Love Story"). -- Bottom Line -- US Democracy US Peasantocracy (no rights, no power, no money: See "The Matrix"; yes, "The Matrix" but with a plutonomics view).
The regulator is not naive. He knows he's rubberstamping, and giving a lame excuse.
If I were debugging a program and I said:
'I think this is a trustful design change we are making. There can't be a design fault because it is the final result of a long debugging session between the application and me.'
You would probably think I was crocked in the head. Long sessions usually indicate deep faults, not easy design fixes. Long negotiations don't suddenly become "trustful" just because the two parties couldn't get close enough for amicable agreement. This negotiator knows that. He's part of a scam.
In other words, he's not naive, but we would be naive to believe that this agreement is anything but a hoax, or that he's innocent of this hoax.
This agreement is not the usual rubberstamp you are looking for. Move along.
Software Patents are no more than Business Land Mines in the form of Monopolies. The whole idea of monopolizing an idea is ludicrous. The idea of choosing what's innovative and what's not is absurd. If necessity is the mother of all invention (and it usually is), then one man's "innovation" is another's necessity.
Business-wise, they are nothing more than government granted monopolies, and hidden land mines. They are totally ludicrous from a social perspective because they hurt everyone.
I lied.
They don't hurt *everyone*. Patents feed IP (Intellectual Property) lawyers and subsidize the legal industry. Think of them as a legalized tax to subsidize IP lawyers and law firms (while clogging the courts, impeding software engineers, and increasing software business risk and expense).
Which brings me to a first-hand observation: When software developers fought the patenting of software at the USPTO hearings, one side of the room was lawyers, and the other side was software engineers. One side was in favor of institutionalizing s/w patents, the other against. (Guess which side was which.) Aside from the merit of anyone's arguments, the sides were well represented since the room was crowded on both sides of the aisle (how did people know which side they belonged on!?).
I lied again.
The front table... you know... the one making the final decision... was ALL LAWYERS. So much for balanced representation and due process.
Yup. Foregone conclusion. The all lawyer council hosted the hearings, presented the issues like it was being debated, and then rubberstamped it into existence. We're still suffering, without a fix in sight.
You don't believe me? Just ask Bruce Lehmann. He ran the USPTO, railroaded software patents into existence using his position. Oh, I'm sure he'll lie and tell you he did no such thing, but he did. (Oh, and see WTO and DMCA for follow-ups by same guy. He's not a brainjob by my reckoning, just a puppet.) I believe the legal industry pulled a fast one on Joe Public with software patents, and is still raking in the big bucks while innovation, good business, good government, and consumer product development suffer.
Oh, and the copying=theft thing? If that was so, why did they not simply report them to the police so they could be charged with theft? I issue this challenge to all who claim copying=theft. Provide me with a copy of your work with an indemnity from any lawsuit for copying except in the case that I am convicted of stealing the work. I'll copy it in a way you can prove, but non-commercially, then you report me to the police for theft. Once that fails, you shut up.
It's hard to get police to enforce the law, especially on white collar crime. And not just about 99c theft, but also billion dollar crimes. So you may be right in your theory, but the police argument is specious.
Assuming this Bruce Lehmann is the same guy who ran the USPTO under Clinton, I seriously do not trust him. If so, he's the same guy who institutionalized software patents using a panel of self-serving lawyers, and did so in a what I consider a blatant (to me) railroad of predetermined hearings. IMO, he is pure politician, claims you can have your cake and eat it too, and uses politics not to serve the public, but to serve the legal industry. IMO, he dismisses the obvious when it matters (policy making) and now is trying to feign innocence.
If this is USPTO Lehmann, then IMO he's a total joke, and a lackey for the legal industry to create law which taxes other industries to the benefit of... the legal industry.
So, he did the DMCA too? Amazing. He is "the architect of the WIPO Internet Treaties". Wow. I didn't know he also "did" the DMCA and WIPO (cast US patent law into global stone), but it makes sense. And I didn't know he was still "in business" ("who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute"). The more things change, the more they stay the same. I guess Lehmann is getting his dues from the legal industry for all the "work" he did on behalf of the legal industry.
Good to know he's still out there. Amazing to know he did the DMCA, WIPO, _and_ institutionalized software patents. What a joke.
I suggest taking anything Lehmann says with a huge grain of salt, even any apologies. He has known what he has been doing for decades, and to feign ignorance now is unconscionable IMO. I do not buy it, and it's not his style. He's more of a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of policy-maker, which is to say he'll ignore the obvious to forcefeed policy despite all public interest(s), IMO. Again, I'm not buying.
Bluntly, the only fix to the patent system is to eliminate it. Why? It's fundamentally flawed and has no inherent value despite claims by the legal industry and their well-heeled clients. Patents will always be fundamentally flawed because 1. they are based on monopolies (which are (supposed to be) illegal), and 2. because they monopolize ideas (not just a specific expression of an idea --- as with copyright --- which is far less objectionable). Ideas should not be subject to monopoly power for any duration no matter how short. Furthermore (for comparison), copyrights do not prevent independent discovery or expression. Patents monopolize an idea regardless of independent discovery, regardless of timing (though proponents claim otherwise), regardless or business merit, regardless of intent behind patent. Patents are absurd.
For the record, there are other problems with patents, their origins, the USPTO, the patent system, and the logistics of patents. For instance, there is no way to administer patents properly (catch-22). There are lots of problems with patents. Ultimately they stem from being fundamentally broken.
What are patents, really? Well, putting legal langauge aside, and adopting more of a metaphorical social and business look, my best analogy is:
patents are business landmines triggered by government approved (USPTO) ideas.
Emphasis: landmines. Landmines are a highly undesirable byproduct of war. That's what patents are. Byproducts of greedy, lazy business people. They are a byproduct of business war augmented by special interest arms manufacturers (legal industry). Lawyers invented and institutionalized patents (e.g., the Lehmann USPTO panel on software patents was a joke, all lawyers). The panel was deaf (but not dumb or blind, IMO). Landmines are extremely dangerous. Patents are debilitating to business, increase risk, and reduce innovation and freedom. The best way to avoid them is not to place them in the first place, or anyplace for that matter. I reiterate: patents are absurd.
Except for the legal industry where they're big money (not just to well-heeled clients, but more pointedly to the industry itself which imposed them). IOW, it's essentially a 'taxation without representation' issue, and will probably take a revolt against the legal industry to eradicate patents. Any "reform" is just another joke, IMO.
-=-
To answer the issue more broadly, there are potential "fix"es for the patent system. For example, in the software industry, OSS (open source software) principles are genuinely compelling in all the right ways. IOW, there are several "positives" which were originally intended to grow out of the patent system which can be achieved through more productive paths. For example, 1. benefit the small manufacturer by creating a window of opportunity to manufacture an invention, and 2. benefit the public by documenting discoveries and inventions (in a sane way).
#2 has long gone by the wayside as patents are obfuscated messes written up by lawyers to be overly general and uninformative (to prevent competition but to maintain control over broad range of ideas) without any public interest at all. Software patents aren't executable (to show they work) nor even compilable. They're just lawyer gobbledygook by unprincipled lawyers (apologies to patent attorneys, but if you truly know you're craft then you'll know I'm right). By contrast, OSS principles ride not on unexecutable gobbledygook, but on socially acceptable or at least compilable&executable code. A library of proven ideas (OSS) trumps gobbledygook legalese (patents) anyday.
Add in a variety of public libraries (internet) for software regarding #1 above (helping small manufacturer), and you have a growing public trust of available resources for the small manufacturer(s) to build on --- augmenting their design and innovation, and speeding their time to market. Just as intended (originally that is) by pat
My biggest disappointment is being unable to (find to) buy two additional controllers for my Wii so that I have enough for four player games. That suggests to me that they're selling faster than they can make them (the controllers are going to the consoles themselves). After that, it would be nice to have some more (not necessarily party) multiplayer games for it.
Bluntly, the only fix to the patent system is to eliminate it. Why? It's fundamentally flawed and has no inherent value despite claims by the legal industry and their well-heeled clients. Patents will always be fundamentally flawed because 1. they are based on monopolies (which are (supposed to be) illegal), and 2. because they monopolize ideas (not just a specific expression of an idea --- as with copyright --- which is far less objectionable). Ideas should not be subject to monopoly power for any duration no matter how short. Furthermore (for comparison), copyrights do not prevent independent discovery or expression. Patents monopolize an idea regardless of independent discovery, regardless of timing (though proponents claim otherwise), regardless or business merit, regardless of intent behind patent. Patents are absurd.
For the record, there are other problems with patents, their origins, the USPTO, the patent system, and the logistics of patents. For instance, there is no way to administer patents properly (catch-22). There are lots of problems with patents. Ultimately they stem from being fundamentally broken.
What are patents, really? Well, putting legal langauge aside, and adopting more of a metaphorical social and business look, my best analogy is:
patents are business landmines triggered by government approved (USPTO) ideas.
Emphasis: landmines. Landmines are a highly undesirable byproduct of war. That's what patents are. Byproducts of greedy, lazy business people. They are a byproduct of business war augmented by special interest arms manufacturers (legal industry). Lawyers invented and institutionalized patents (e.g., the Lehmann USPTO panel on software patents was a joke, all lawyers). The panel was deaf (but not dumb or blind, IMO). Landmines are extremely dangerous. Patents are debilitating to business, increase risk, and reduce innovation and freedom. The best way to avoid them is not to place them in the first place, or anyplace for that matter. I reiterate: patents are absurd.
Except for the legal industry where they're big money (not just to well-heeled clients, but more pointedly to the industry itself which imposed them). IOW, it's essentially a 'taxation without representation' issue, and will probably take a revolt against the legal industry to eradicate patents. Any "reform" is just another joke, IMO.
-=-
To answer the issue more broadly, there are potential "fix"es for the patent system. For example, in the software industry, OSS (open source software) principles are genuinely compelling in all the right ways. IOW, there are several "positives" which were originally intended to grow out of the patent system which can be achieved through more productive paths. For example, 1. benefit the small manufacturer by creating a window of opportunity to manufacture an invention, and 2. benefit the public by documenting discoveries and inventions (in a sane way).
#2 has long gone by the wayside as patents are obfuscated messes written up by lawyers to be overly general and uninformative (to prevent competition but to maintain control over broad range of ideas) without any public interest at all. Software patents aren't executable (to show they work) nor even compilable. They're just lawyer gobbledygook by unprincipled lawyers (apologies to patent attorneys, but if you truly know you're craft then you'll know I'm right). By contrast, OSS principles ride not on unexecutable gobbledygook, but on socially acceptable or at least compilable&executable code. A library of proven ideas (OSS) trumps gobbledygook legalese (patents) anyday.
Add in a variety of public libraries (internet) for software regarding #1 above (helping small manufacturer), and you have a growing public trust of available resources for the small manufacturer(s) to build on --- augmenting their design and innovation, and speeding their time to market. Just as intended (originally that is) by patents. IOW, patents are a
Patents are government granted monopolies. Monopolies are illegal. For a reason. Then why legalize them? (Special interests.)
Patents are like IP land mines. They lay in wait for unsuspecting (or these days, even suspecting) victims. Beneficiaries of the patent system are IP predators --- who flog their ideas to the USPTO for monopoly privileges, and then flog other companies with lawsuits.
IMO, it's government granted extortion.
These are IP landmines. On ideas. By idea predators. There isn't even a guarantee that the innovator invented the idea. Patents are monopoly grabs, not innovation.
Purge _all_ patents, not just software patents (patently absurd), drug patents (usually the poster child of patents "working"), and all business and any other patent. In other words, illegalize monopolies --- as usual. Let the current patents expire at an exponentially increasing rate (max three years for existing companies to recover from the changing legal landscape).
It's a little pricey entry level, but I believe you would _love_ a Kaleidescape. It's basically an expandable hard drive based movie and music player, that has a rare blend of high tech wizardry and wizbang fun to use interface. That's really pretty incredible considering it's a niche product. I just heard they're about to update the interface with a radical redesign to improve it.
Anyway, you can skip FBI warnings, and even splice favorite parts of movies to make a favorites collection using Kaleidescape, among many other things. Unfortunately, it's very powerful and you pay for it ( $5+K I think).
GLuck.
Really? Long live the Sony memory stick!
on
Sony Admits MP3 Error
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Has Sony really learned the lesson about fighting preexisting standards to its own disadvantage? Then why virtually all Sony digicams sport _only_ Sony proprietary memory stick for flash memory? Even when memory stick costs roughly twice the compact flash equivalent?
Answer: Sony has not learned the underlying lesson and continues to commit the same betamax faux pas indefinitely. It's OK when they win a format war (Playstation*), but they're too slow to realign when they can't possibly win.
Sony still needs to learn the fundamental lesson: play nice with the prevailing standards, and don't shoot yourself in the foot with unnecessarily proprietary standards.
Since my post really highlights some of what's wrong with USA institutions (ADA, NIH) and already casts a long shadow toward the dental, medical, and legal community as well as a chronic short-sightedness of western medicine (to deal with trauma instead of preventive medicine), I figure I'll add one more step to bring this all back to a more relevant topic for slashdot:
patents!
Given western medicine's tunnel vision on trauma and drugs, despite eons and centuries of natural health remedies, how (in the hell) would you say we got to this odd place?
Good question.
I hypothesize patents. The whole idea (patent pending) of patents is ludicrous. You can own an idea --- bah humbug. It creates a legal landmines barring independent discovery/invention whatever you want to call it. It's antisocial and counter-productive.
However, lawyers have institutionalized them (in their own best interests of course). (Do you know the percentage of lawyers on the panel to decide whether to (over)extend patents into software? 100%. Can you say conflict of interest? Can you say industrial "taxation" by lawyers without representation of any non-conflicted constituents, e.g., software engineeers? Thank you Bruce Lehmann (under Al Gore's "techno-savvy" eye).)
You'd think the costs of patents were obvious, but they're not. They're wide-ranging and often subtle and incestuous.
The lucrative drug industry is a by-product of patents --- at the expense (in my hypothesis anyway) of natural remedies and preventive medicine. The focus of the NIH and congress and other powers-that-be is where the money is. The drug companies *are* the money in medicine, even though the doctors' lobby should be strong it gets outlobbied all the time. Guess what? The drug companies are driving the politics of medicine, and the result is a medical establishment blind to often obvious natural remedies, and not just closed-minded but actively obstructionist to well-being initiatives (at least those which threaten drug company interests).
Welcome to the modern USA world (which has a dire effect on the rest of the world as well since we wield so many of the world's resources on "behalf" of humanity).
Patents aren't just bad for software (or hardware) or even just medicine. They're bad for medicine and personal health and well-being. Severe brokenness has dire and far-reaching consequences.
Cheers (and thanks to Idarubicin for inspiring this circle of thought).
Nonetheless, I do find the ironic vagueness of your selected quotations entertaining. Too bad the NIH doesn't take the issue more seriously as it may be the most damaging and wide-ranging diseases in USA society (not modern civilization since mercury fillings are appropriately outlawed in many countries). I guess the NIH/USA/ADA and you have a monopoly on scientific and medical knowledge, right?
By the way, how do I tell if I have "general environmental anxiety"? Is the NIH concluding that's a symptom of mercury toxicity, or trying to debunk mercury toxicity with that statement? Your intent is clear, but the quotation's "suggest"ion is dubious at best as they could just as easily be putting the cart before the horse. That would debunk their own case, woudn't it? (IOW, question "authority" especially in the face of hard experience, poisonous toxicity, and chronic CYA by ADA and NIH.)
As for the replacement damaging quotation, I agree. That's why I suggested going to a mercury-sensitive but competent dentist for replacement.
Also, FYI, the toxicity half-lifes indefinitely from the bones even after fillings are removed, so the symptoms unfortunately don't simply disappear, but diminish over the course of years (with any luck). The best course of action is to avoid "silver"/"amalgam" aka mercury fillings at all costs despite NIH/ADA and your denials otherwise.
The woman with schizophrenia was lucky her (schizophrenia) condition vanished rapidly, but I'm sure her toxicity did not. I think a lot depends on constitution (genetics et al) and level of exposure (e.g., bone supply of mercury). Mercury reportedly damages the immune system (adrenal gland, etc.) as well, so the body can be too weak to recover normally for those severely exposed. It's too bad the NIH doesn't do more in depth, meaningful studies to expose the various aspects of the mercury issue, but then again it's also too bad western medicine doesn't take a more preventive approach to health and well-being, isn't it?
Perhaps the NIH will look more aggressively and perseveringly after the ADA stops recommending mercury fillings. I think that most likely (if at all).
In the meantime, I'm glad the lawyers, dentists, and doctors haven't completely outlawed self-diagnosis (yet!).
Yes, you are absolutely right. I have read the mercury behaves like calcium in the body and ends up in the bones, leaking out indefinitely back into the blood stream probably for years. AFAIK, there is no way to purge the bones of mercury. The typical purge only affects the bloodstream without clearing the bones. So, mercury fillings lead to a lifetime of (a)symptoms.
Perhaps this is why the Germany effect doesn't see rapid improvement in ailments, since the mercury toxicity degrades slowly.
Also, this eternal leakage issue essentially renders western medicine impotent to solve it "objectively" since the bloodstream (what they usually test with a blood test) is an inconclusive test (even though they treat it otherwise). It's a shame NIH doesn't take a more logical approach to the situation.
-=-
As an aside to the naysayers (but noone in particular):
Didn't Greek civilization fall in some consequence due to lead food containers, and consequent heavy metal (lead) poisoning? Welcome to "modern" civilization! (History repeats itself for those unwilling to learn from the past.)
In case it helps, I once heard about someone with a sudden onset of schizophrenia. After going through a divorce (consequence of schizophrenia), she had her mercury fillings removed and fully recovered. The symptoms from mercury (heavy metal) poisoning are essentially asymptomatic (non-deterministic), so it affects different people differently at non-lethal amounts. FYI, another common (perhaps the major) symptom of mercury toxicity is (often undiagnosed, asymptomatic) CFS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which creeps up on you and can be debilitating.
I've had all my mercury (aka amalgam, silver) fillings replaced and would recommend doing so. If your sister has any silver/amalgam/mercury fillings, I'd suggest getting them removed --- for general health if not to address the possibility of causing symptoms of schizophrenia.
Not to complicate matters, but I'd also recommend going to a dentist who is not a quack (the silver filling fiasco has been abused by unscrupulous, incompetent dentists) but sensitive to the issue. Removal of mercury fillings can be toxic in itself, so extra measures can and should be taken including an air/water dam around tooth (to avoid swallowing any additional mercury) and a ventilator (to avoid inhaling mercury fumes as byproduct of drilling, removal).
And, no, the ADA (American Dental Association) won't corroborate any of this advice since, according to them, mercury (silver/amalgam) fillings are only toxic when outside your mouth (i.e., before filling, and after removal --- where it's required to be dealt with in toxic disposal!). (Can you say huge liability lawsuit (a la tobacco) for conflict of interest in supporting amalgam fillings?) Unfortunately, the NIH is no more accountable on this issue.
My gaming group and I still play CTR (Crash Team Racing) for the PS1. Yes, there's a new version (for which we waited expectantly) but it's a total dog (new developer, poor game). The original CTR is so tightly programmed, it's still a classic. Old arcade classics don't die either. So, the backwards compatibility can be a strong feature, and I use it for CTR still.
>leeching off of somebody else's idea (by definition)
You do not understand patents. Patents are a legal monopoly granted based on patent application. They do not prevent anyone from having the same idea. Under current law, they do not even strive to guarantee the idea is original or novel. Many people can have the same idea, but the patent grants only one the monopoly.
See a problem? Especially when nothing should be patented.
By contrast, copyright allows for more than one person to express the same idea in the same way. There's no copyright violation if the accused can prove the form of expression was original.
See how that's better?
Patents do not mean what you think they mean. They're a legal term and a solution in search of a problem. Bottom line: they themselves are a problem (except for the legal industry and (I might add) USPTO bureaucracy who are thriving on them.
Patents are roadblocks to progress. There's nothing "necessary" about them at all. I would venture to say (in your own condescending tone) that "necessary" does not mean what you think it means, Paul.
Software patents are ludicrous. The establishment (legal industry) is in conflict of interest by perpetuating them. The software industry fought them when they were about to be institutionalized. A panel of lawyers from the USPTO headed by the bureaucratic Bruce Lehmann instituted them over the software industry's objections anyway. Frankly, I'm not sure that maneuver was even legal considering the huge conflict of interest and lack of representation on the panel's part.
It's not really your choice whether they're necessary. They're obviously not.
To anyone accomplished, experienced software engineer (and even those with foresight), software patents are an obstacle to progress and counterproductive to innovation.
Programming (much less innovating) is hard enough to do without adding a whole 'nother dimension (legal roadblocks) to the mix. Plus, most practical inventions are by necessity anyway. What do they say: necessity is the mother of invention?
Necessity leads to innovation; greed leads to patents.
- legalized monopolies, and monopolies are bad. - legal minefields for software initiatives, and mines are extremely counterproductive in (real and analogous) terms. - an involuntary subsidy by the software industry for the self-serving legal industry. - an impediment to open (and commercial) software development. - an idea based solution to an implementation driven market (ideas are cheap; implementation is hard). - a backwards implementation benefitting manipulators of the system, not the brilliance in innovation. - an upside down system benefitting those with big pockets (and fat lawyers) instead of the underdogs (for whom patents were very originally intended). - a joke in any industry (e.g., software) where production is a mere disk copy away (i.e., there is no manufacturing impediment in software, so even the original concept of patent protection is absurd) - completely absurd to implement in theory (due to impossibility of any patent examiner's job) and practice considering the infinitude of like ideas in different forms (with patents as with novels, plots, etc.) - absurd since software is a written form of thought --- and you shouldn't be able to patent (anything but especially) thoughts.
That's just off the top of my head.
IOW, patents are a Lehman (prounounced "lemon") law perpetuated so the legal industry can forcefeed carcinogenic lemonade to the software industry.
Despite liking BMW's, I'd say their choosing MS OS for their cars seems to dovetail with their latest love-hate designs of the new 7 and 5 series. Bangle seems to make very controversial decisions which even to the plainest view, have warts. MS OS seems to fit the Bangle model for feature-ful failed designs. I just hope BMW recovers sooner than later (the board should already have taken action but so it goes).
I hope the government forces car companies to label any car with an MS OS in it. Caveat emptor!
Steve, I just realized you were replying to my informative post (not just my claim that I've heard the differences). You must really dislike the idea that cables can make a difference. Wow!
It's funny, my favorite music is the emotionally evocative stuff, but when discussing it, I prefer a more rational discussion. It's definitely tough enough to discuss musicality intelligently without additional hurdles being imposed.
Nope, just knowing at the time whether you're listening to the system with $10,000 wires or the system with $10 wires.
This thread seems to bring out some very passive aggressive styles of rhetoric. I know you know what I was saying, but to make it absolutely clear...
Regardless of what the cables cost, you can hear the differences. For some of the subtleties, it takes acute hearing. For some, it's just more musical. For some differences, it takes an extended listening session, and then you can eventually figure out what the differences are (e.g., to explain why one setup is fatiguing, and the other isn't).
A trained ear can often pinpoint the differences without delay. I have two friends who can do so and explain it so well that I can figure out what I was hearing and agree with them. I don't know if it's from experience (e.g., knowing in part what to look for) or just raw sonic analytical skill, but it's definitely a (two-edged) gift.
I also know someone who is adamant that all CD players sound the same. Many of the people on this thread seem to be weighing in from that end of the spectrum.
To clarify even further, cost is not the driving factor for the differences in cables, and, to drive the point all the way home, neither is the price tag hanging off of the cables.
That's about as plain as my english gets. Take it or leave it.
>The only time you'll likely hear a difference in cabling is in >a highly tuned setup. Of course, that's the only time >you'd likely find such cables anyway.
Actually, cabling can easily make a difference especially with less than proficient stereos! What I meant to say was:
The only time you'll hear the key differences with *ultra-high-end* cables is in a highly tuned setup.
IOW, the law of diminishing returns says that lesser cables are more than sufficient for lesser systems. Ultra-high-end cables only truly benefit genuinely high-end (not necessarily most expensive!) systems.
That probably muddies the water in an already fuzzy and ill-resolved discussion, but... I think it's closer to the mark.
Many people are skeptical that cables can (i.e., should) make any difference. OTOH, it's clear that a loose connection is audible. It's also clear that a frayed cable would be bad. It's not that hard to believe that a decent cable can be upgraded by a good cable when you consider the key importance cables have. They are the single transfer point between components, so they have full exposure to affect all aspects of the signal (for better or worse).
Then consider that components in audio equipment (especially amps and speakers) do not necessarily behave 'politely' at different frequencies and under different loads. In addition, consider that sound is very sensitive to temporal issues and distortion, and cables provide such distortion simply by virtue of their length. Now consider that, ideally, the cables would be a non-issue --- transparent sonically. Physically, they can't be, but they would be. Ultimately, you've got a conduit that is less than perfect even if it's pure copper. At best, it provides resistance and capacitance that modestly interferes with pure signal transmission.
Worst case, it echoes, rings, imperfectly transfers signals, misbehaves under different loads, has varying impedance for different frequency signals, etc.. Now add in the effect a cable has in *both* directions to the equipment it connects. Then cascade that effect back and forward through the stereo equipment... and then back into the cable itself (recursive distortion effects). Can you say non-linear dynamic systems! Now we're talking chaos.
Things in audio can easily get into audibly distorted range.
do not just try to transfer signal with utter transparency and temporal accuracy across all audible and superaudible frequency ranges, they also try to eliminate many of the causes of systemic distortion inherent to simple cables. The ultra-high-end cables actually contain hand-made filters specific to specific brands and models of components that will be attached to them. I have heard Transparent actually purchases components just so they can build cables for the components. Some of these components are tres cher! So, the cable development and tuning is not just a wire, it's test setup involving the components being connected combined with the manual labor to tune the individual cable for that specific equipment. (Actually, there's a whole lot more to Transparent cables as well, but you can check out the web site.)
Needless to say, the $10k is for more than your typical cable. The issues they address are arcane and specific to audio systems, but at the top-end become key isses which can only be addressed with appropriate measures/cables.
I hope that sheds some light on the original cabling question.
Slashdot Mirror
Sick or not, intellectually he's spot on. Reread his concerns about US and war and taxes.
Then pretend you're a large scale fraudster with control over (literally) trillions of dollars, and key control points peppered throughout US government. Then consider how YOU would design and run a large scale fraud (Commons Fraud). Then consider how YOU would use your government control points to fleece unwitting tax payers out of billions and trillions of dollars per year.
Perhaps you see Brandon Raub's concerns. If not, you're an example of when, why, and how democracy fails. In theory, every patriotic citizen should be deathly concerned that democracy has been turned on its head to use as a vehicle for overwhelming fraud.
Brandon Raub is concerned, but you're not. Really? Who's nuts?
Also kudos to Brandon Raub for his psychological fortitude. Soldiers, military families, and military friends are all very susceptible to the state of denial about war corruption because they are likely to have lost close ones to such crime. That's a heavy and for some insurmountable emotional and psychological burden to overcome with intellect. Since these frauds typically involve going to war unnecessarily, Brandon Raub has already transcended the typical emotional, patriotic, psychological trap of war veteran victims (and their families and friends).
Ditto the war veteran actors and consultants on movies like "The Green Zone" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Zone_(film)].
Casualties to fraudster wars are horribly tragic victims of terribly predatory faceless fraud run abusing overwhelming government power. So, the fact that a military veteran (Brandon) has transcended this psychological trap speaks to his intellectual stamina. Is he crazy? His friends don't think so. Even the ones who are military veterans, but you do?
About 911, Raub points out that a building fell down all on its own. Until you (or someone) could explain that glaring incongruity definitively, don't say he's nuts for calling 911 an inside job. 911 adds up far more likely as an inside job courtesy a US intelligence agent (Osama bin Laden as anti-Russian agent repurposed as scape goat). Recall 911 launched several meaningless and misguided wars with HUGE impact on USA debt --- a basic money laundering / extortion / embezzlement scheme from American taxpayer wallets to stracketeer bank accounts. That's all Brandon Raub is pointing out... and he's not alone.
So, next time you hear that the 911 wars were a farce, and that 911 was more than likely an inside job, think twice.
When you recall that the Bush family is at the heart of several election rigging schemes, think twice.
When you consider that BushLeague family and associates installed Supreme Court Justices who are central to the most ludicrous SCOTUS opinions in the nation's history (including GWBush reelection as President), think twice.
When you consider GWBush started a war (in retrospect) on total pretense (e.g., see movie "The Green Zone" with Matt Damon for docufiction of what must have happened regarding WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction farce) on the ground in Iraq), think twice.
And in case you didn't know that the Bush family has been linked to the similar behavior and motive for WWII (financing Nazi Germany war machine), i.e., across multiple generations, think twice.
Once you consider all that, it makes perfect sense that the Bush family would have an out of country (somewhere in South America) family compound for when all the proverbial shit hits the fan. Because when you put 2+2 together, some superficially crazy shit starts to make perfect sense. Which is probably why Brandon Raub says we're headed for a revolution.
You see, when democracy (or any government) breaks down --- a growing number of citizens realize their government is a vehicle for fraud and there's NOTHING we can do about it --- it's just a matter of time until a critical mass of knowledge spreads and ignites. History repeats itself, and our "democracy
Government in bed with... military industrial complex (Cheney) Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth.
Government in bed with... Wall St. financial collapse + Wall St.'s "Mortgage Bailout" and highway robbery of the tax dollar.
Government in bed with... Journalism government "tuned" journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence.
Dilution of Common Rights & Principles more Plutonomics (See Michael Moore's film, "Capitalism: A Love Story").
-- Bottom Line --
US Democracy US Peasantocracy (no rights, no power, no money: See "The Matrix"; yes, "The Matrix" but with a plutonomics view).
The regulator is not naive. He knows he's rubberstamping, and giving a lame excuse.
If I were debugging a program and I said:
'I think this is a trustful design change we are making. There can't be a design fault because it is the final result of a long debugging session between the application and me.'
You would probably think I was crocked in the head. Long sessions usually indicate deep faults, not easy design fixes. Long negotiations don't suddenly become "trustful" just because the two parties couldn't get close enough for amicable agreement. This negotiator knows that. He's part of a scam.
In other words, he's not naive, but we would be naive to believe that this agreement is anything but a hoax, or that he's innocent of this hoax.
This agreement is not the usual rubberstamp you are looking for. Move along.
Software Patents are no more than Business Land Mines in the form of Monopolies. The whole idea of monopolizing an idea is ludicrous. The idea of choosing what's innovative and what's not is absurd. If necessity is the mother of all invention (and it usually is), then one man's "innovation" is another's necessity.
Business-wise, they are nothing more than government granted monopolies, and hidden land mines. They are totally ludicrous from a social perspective because they hurt everyone.
I lied.
They don't hurt *everyone*. Patents feed IP (Intellectual Property) lawyers and subsidize the legal industry. Think of them as a legalized tax to subsidize IP lawyers and law firms (while clogging the courts, impeding software engineers, and increasing software business risk and expense).
Which brings me to a first-hand observation: When software developers fought the patenting of software at the USPTO hearings, one side of the room was lawyers, and the other side was software engineers. One side was in favor of institutionalizing s/w patents, the other against. (Guess which side was which.) Aside from the merit of anyone's arguments, the sides were well represented since the room was crowded on both sides of the aisle (how did people know which side they belonged on!?).
I lied again.
The front table... you know... the one making the final decision... was ALL LAWYERS. So much for balanced representation and due process.
Yup. Foregone conclusion. The all lawyer council hosted the hearings, presented the issues like it was being debated, and then rubberstamped it into existence. We're still suffering, without a fix in sight.
You don't believe me? Just ask Bruce Lehmann. He ran the USPTO, railroaded software patents into existence using his position. Oh, I'm sure he'll lie and tell you he did no such thing, but he did. (Oh, and see WTO and DMCA for follow-ups by same guy. He's not a brainjob by my reckoning, just a puppet.) I believe the legal industry pulled a fast one on Joe Public with software patents, and is still raking in the big bucks while innovation, good business, good government, and consumer product development suffer.
Oh, and the copying=theft thing? If that was so, why did they not simply report them to the police so they could be charged with theft? I issue this challenge to all who claim copying=theft. Provide me with a copy of your work with an indemnity from any lawsuit for copying except in the case that I am convicted of stealing the work. I'll copy it in a way you can prove, but non-commercially, then you report me to the police for theft. Once that fails, you shut up.
It's hard to get police to enforce the law, especially on white collar crime. And not just about 99c theft, but also billion dollar crimes. So you may be right in your theory, but the police argument is specious.
Assuming this Bruce Lehmann is the same guy who ran the USPTO under Clinton, I seriously do not trust him. If so, he's the same guy who institutionalized software patents using a panel of self-serving lawyers, and did so in a what I consider a blatant (to me) railroad of predetermined hearings. IMO, he is pure politician, claims you can have your cake and eat it too, and uses politics not to serve the public, but to serve the legal industry. IMO, he dismisses the obvious when it matters (policy making) and now is trying to feign innocence.
If this is USPTO Lehmann, then IMO he's a total joke, and a lackey for the legal industry to create law which taxes other industries to the benefit of... the legal industry.
So, he did the DMCA too? Amazing. He is "the architect of the WIPO Internet Treaties". Wow. I didn't know he also "did" the DMCA and WIPO (cast US patent law into global stone), but it makes sense. And I didn't know he was still "in business" ("who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute"). The more things change, the more they stay the same. I guess Lehmann is getting his dues from the legal industry for all the "work" he did on behalf of the legal industry.
Good to know he's still out there. Amazing to know he did the DMCA, WIPO, _and_ institutionalized software patents. What a joke.
I suggest taking anything Lehmann says with a huge grain of salt, even any apologies. He has known what he has been doing for decades, and to feign ignorance now is unconscionable IMO. I do not buy it, and it's not his style. He's more of a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of policy-maker, which is to say he'll ignore the obvious to forcefeed policy despite all public interest(s), IMO. Again, I'm not buying.
Good for the justices.
Bluntly, the only fix to the patent system is to eliminate it. Why? It's fundamentally flawed and has no inherent value despite claims by the legal industry and their well-heeled clients. Patents will always be fundamentally flawed because 1. they are based on monopolies (which are (supposed to be) illegal), and 2. because they monopolize ideas (not just a specific expression of an idea --- as with copyright --- which is far less objectionable). Ideas should not be subject to monopoly power for any duration no matter how short. Furthermore (for comparison), copyrights do not prevent independent discovery or expression. Patents monopolize an idea regardless of independent discovery, regardless of timing (though proponents claim otherwise), regardless or business merit, regardless of intent behind patent. Patents are absurd.
For the record, there are other problems with patents, their origins, the USPTO, the patent system, and the logistics of patents. For instance, there is no way to administer patents properly (catch-22). There are lots of problems with patents. Ultimately they stem from being fundamentally broken.
What are patents, really? Well, putting legal langauge aside, and adopting more of a metaphorical social and business look, my best analogy is:
patents are business landmines triggered by government approved (USPTO) ideas.
Emphasis: landmines. Landmines are a highly undesirable byproduct of war. That's what patents are. Byproducts of greedy, lazy business people. They are a byproduct of business war augmented by special interest arms manufacturers (legal industry). Lawyers invented and institutionalized patents (e.g., the Lehmann USPTO panel on software patents was a joke, all lawyers). The panel was deaf (but not dumb or blind, IMO). Landmines are extremely dangerous. Patents are debilitating to business, increase risk, and reduce innovation and freedom. The best way to avoid them is not to place them in the first place, or anyplace for that matter. I reiterate: patents are absurd.
Except for the legal industry where they're big money (not just to well-heeled clients, but more pointedly to the industry itself which imposed them). IOW, it's essentially a 'taxation without representation' issue, and will probably take a revolt against the legal industry to eradicate patents. Any "reform" is just another joke, IMO.
-=-
To answer the issue more broadly, there are potential "fix"es for the patent system. For example, in the software industry, OSS (open source software) principles are genuinely compelling in all the right ways. IOW, there are several "positives" which were originally intended to grow out of the patent system which can be achieved through more productive paths. For example, 1. benefit the small manufacturer by creating a window of opportunity to manufacture an invention, and 2. benefit the public by documenting discoveries and inventions (in a sane way).
#2 has long gone by the wayside as patents are obfuscated messes written up by lawyers to be overly general and uninformative (to prevent competition but to maintain control over broad range of ideas) without any public interest at all. Software patents aren't executable (to show they work) nor even compilable. They're just lawyer gobbledygook by unprincipled lawyers (apologies to patent attorneys, but if you truly know you're craft then you'll know I'm right). By contrast, OSS principles ride not on unexecutable gobbledygook, but on socially acceptable or at least compilable&executable code. A library of proven ideas (OSS) trumps gobbledygook legalese (patents) anyday.
Add in a variety of public libraries (internet) for software regarding #1 above (helping small manufacturer), and you have a growing public trust of available resources for the small manufacturer(s) to build on --- augmenting their design and innovation, and speeding their time to market. Just as intended (originally that is) by pat
My biggest disappointment is being unable to (find to) buy two additional controllers for my Wii so that I have enough for four player games. That suggests to me that they're selling faster than they can make them (the controllers are going to the consoles themselves). After that, it would be nice to have some more (not necessarily party) multiplayer games for it.
Bluntly, the only fix to the patent system is to eliminate it. Why? It's fundamentally flawed and has no inherent value despite claims by the legal industry and their well-heeled clients. Patents will always be fundamentally flawed because 1. they are based on monopolies (which are (supposed to be) illegal), and 2. because they monopolize ideas (not just a specific expression of an idea --- as with copyright --- which is far less objectionable). Ideas should not be subject to monopoly power for any duration no matter how short. Furthermore (for comparison), copyrights do not prevent independent discovery or expression. Patents monopolize an idea regardless of independent discovery, regardless of timing (though proponents claim otherwise), regardless or business merit, regardless of intent behind patent. Patents are absurd.
For the record, there are other problems with patents, their origins, the USPTO, the patent system, and the logistics of patents. For instance, there is no way to administer patents properly (catch-22). There are lots of problems with patents. Ultimately they stem from being fundamentally broken.
What are patents, really? Well, putting legal langauge aside, and adopting more of a metaphorical social and business look, my best analogy is:
patents are business landmines triggered by government approved (USPTO) ideas.
Emphasis: landmines. Landmines are a highly undesirable byproduct of war. That's what patents are. Byproducts of greedy, lazy business people. They are a byproduct of business war augmented by special interest arms manufacturers (legal industry). Lawyers invented and institutionalized patents (e.g., the Lehmann USPTO panel on software patents was a joke, all lawyers). The panel was deaf (but not dumb or blind, IMO). Landmines are extremely dangerous. Patents are debilitating to business, increase risk, and reduce innovation and freedom. The best way to avoid them is not to place them in the first place, or anyplace for that matter. I reiterate: patents are absurd.
Except for the legal industry where they're big money (not just to well-heeled clients, but more pointedly to the industry itself which imposed them). IOW, it's essentially a 'taxation without representation' issue, and will probably take a revolt against the legal industry to eradicate patents. Any "reform" is just another joke, IMO.
-=-
To answer the issue more broadly, there are potential "fix"es for the patent system. For example, in the software industry, OSS (open source software) principles are genuinely compelling in all the right ways. IOW, there are several "positives" which were originally intended to grow out of the patent system which can be achieved through more productive paths. For example, 1. benefit the small manufacturer by creating a window of opportunity to manufacture an invention, and 2. benefit the public by documenting discoveries and inventions (in a sane way).
#2 has long gone by the wayside as patents are obfuscated messes written up by lawyers to be overly general and uninformative (to prevent competition but to maintain control over broad range of ideas) without any public interest at all. Software patents aren't executable (to show they work) nor even compilable. They're just lawyer gobbledygook by unprincipled lawyers (apologies to patent attorneys, but if you truly know you're craft then you'll know I'm right). By contrast, OSS principles ride not on unexecutable gobbledygook, but on socially acceptable or at least compilable&executable code. A library of proven ideas (OSS) trumps gobbledygook legalese (patents) anyday.
Add in a variety of public libraries (internet) for software regarding #1 above (helping small manufacturer), and you have a growing public trust of available resources for the small manufacturer(s) to build on --- augmenting their design and innovation, and speeding their time to market. Just as intended (originally that is) by patents. IOW, patents are a
IMO:
> Patents bad for innovation?
No kidding.
Patents are government granted monopolies. Monopolies are illegal. For a reason. Then why legalize them? (Special interests.)
Patents are like IP land mines. They lay in wait for unsuspecting (or these days, even suspecting) victims. Beneficiaries of the patent system are IP predators --- who flog their ideas to the USPTO for monopoly privileges, and then flog other companies with lawsuits.
IMO, it's government granted extortion.
These are IP landmines. On ideas. By idea predators. There isn't even a guarantee that the innovator invented the idea. Patents are monopoly grabs, not innovation.
Purge _all_ patents, not just software patents (patently absurd), drug patents (usually the poster child of patents "working"), and all business and any other patent. In other words, illegalize monopolies --- as usual. Let the current patents expire at an exponentially increasing rate (max three years for existing companies to recover from the changing legal landscape).
USPTO becomes USTO (take out patents).
No brainer.
It's a little pricey entry level, but I believe you would _love_ a Kaleidescape. It's basically an expandable hard drive based movie and music player, that has a rare blend of high tech wizardry and wizbang fun to use interface. That's really pretty incredible considering it's a niche product. I just heard they're about to update the interface with a radical redesign to improve it.
Anyway, you can skip FBI warnings, and even splice favorite parts of movies to make a favorites collection using Kaleidescape, among many other things. Unfortunately, it's very powerful and you pay for it ( $5+K I think).
GLuck.
Has Sony really learned the lesson about fighting preexisting standards to its own disadvantage? Then why virtually all Sony digicams sport _only_ Sony proprietary memory stick for flash memory? Even when memory stick costs roughly twice the compact flash equivalent?
Answer: Sony has not learned the underlying lesson and continues to commit the same betamax faux pas indefinitely. It's OK when they win a format war (Playstation*), but they're too slow to realign when they can't possibly win.
Sony still needs to learn the fundamental lesson: play nice with the prevailing standards, and don't shoot yourself in the foot with unnecessarily proprietary standards.
= Joe =
Since my post really highlights some of what's wrong with USA institutions (ADA, NIH) and already casts a long shadow toward the dental, medical, and legal community as well as a chronic short-sightedness of western medicine (to deal with trauma instead of preventive medicine), I figure I'll add one more step to bring this all back to a more relevant topic for slashdot:
patents!
Given western medicine's tunnel vision on trauma and drugs, despite eons and centuries of natural health remedies, how (in the hell) would you say we got to this odd place?
Good question.
I hypothesize patents. The whole idea (patent pending) of patents is ludicrous. You can own an idea --- bah humbug. It creates a legal landmines barring independent discovery/invention whatever you want to call it. It's antisocial and counter-productive.
However, lawyers have institutionalized them (in their own best interests of course). (Do you know the percentage of lawyers on the panel to decide whether to (over)extend patents into software? 100%. Can you say conflict of interest? Can you say industrial "taxation" by lawyers without representation of any non-conflicted constituents, e.g., software engineeers? Thank you Bruce Lehmann (under Al Gore's "techno-savvy" eye).)
You'd think the costs of patents were obvious, but they're not. They're wide-ranging and often subtle and incestuous.
The lucrative drug industry is a by-product of patents --- at the expense (in my hypothesis anyway) of natural remedies and preventive medicine. The focus of the NIH and congress and other powers-that-be is where the money is. The drug companies *are* the money in medicine, even though the doctors' lobby should be strong it gets outlobbied all the time. Guess what? The drug companies are driving the politics of medicine, and the result is a medical establishment blind to often obvious natural remedies, and not just closed-minded but actively obstructionist to well-being initiatives (at least those which threaten drug company interests).
Welcome to the modern USA world (which has a dire effect on the rest of the world as well since we wield so many of the world's resources on "behalf" of humanity).
Patents aren't just bad for software (or hardware) or even just medicine. They're bad for medicine and personal health and well-being. Severe brokenness has dire and far-reaching consequences.
Cheers (and thanks to Idarubicin for inspiring this circle of thought).
Can you spell CYA?
Nonetheless, I do find the ironic vagueness of your selected quotations entertaining. Too bad the NIH doesn't take the issue more seriously as it may be the most damaging and wide-ranging diseases in USA society (not modern civilization since mercury fillings are appropriately outlawed in many countries). I guess the NIH/USA/ADA and you have a monopoly on scientific and medical knowledge, right?
By the way, how do I tell if I have "general environmental anxiety"? Is the NIH concluding that's a symptom of mercury toxicity, or trying to debunk mercury toxicity with that statement? Your intent is clear, but the quotation's "suggest"ion is dubious at best as they could just as easily be putting the cart before the horse. That would debunk their own case, woudn't it? (IOW, question "authority" especially in the face of hard experience, poisonous toxicity, and chronic CYA by ADA and NIH.)
As for the replacement damaging quotation, I agree. That's why I suggested going to a mercury-sensitive but competent dentist for replacement.
Also, FYI, the toxicity half-lifes indefinitely from the bones even after fillings are removed, so the symptoms unfortunately don't simply disappear, but diminish over the course of years (with any luck). The best course of action is to avoid "silver"/"amalgam" aka mercury fillings at all costs despite NIH/ADA and your denials otherwise.
The woman with schizophrenia was lucky her (schizophrenia) condition vanished rapidly, but I'm sure her toxicity did not. I think a lot depends on constitution (genetics et al) and level of exposure (e.g., bone supply of mercury). Mercury reportedly damages the immune system (adrenal gland, etc.) as well, so the body can be too weak to recover normally for those severely exposed. It's too bad the NIH doesn't do more in depth, meaningful studies to expose the various aspects of the mercury issue, but then again it's also too bad western medicine doesn't take a more preventive approach to health and well-being, isn't it?
Perhaps the NIH will look more aggressively and perseveringly after the ADA stops recommending mercury fillings. I think that most likely (if at all).
In the meantime, I'm glad the lawyers, dentists, and doctors haven't completely outlawed self-diagnosis (yet!).
Cheers.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I have read the mercury behaves like calcium in the body and ends up in the bones, leaking out indefinitely back into the blood stream probably for years. AFAIK, there is no way to purge the bones of mercury. The typical purge only affects the bloodstream without clearing the bones. So, mercury fillings lead to a lifetime of (a)symptoms.
Perhaps this is why the Germany effect doesn't see rapid improvement in ailments, since the mercury toxicity degrades slowly.
Also, this eternal leakage issue essentially renders western medicine impotent to solve it "objectively" since the bloodstream (what they usually test with a blood test) is an inconclusive test (even though they treat it otherwise). It's a shame NIH doesn't take a more logical approach to the situation.
-=-
As an aside to the naysayers (but noone in particular):
Didn't Greek civilization fall in some consequence due to lead food containers, and consequent heavy metal (lead) poisoning? Welcome to "modern" civilization! (History repeats itself for those unwilling to learn from the past.)
Cliff:
In case it helps, I once heard about someone with a sudden onset of schizophrenia. After going through a divorce (consequence of schizophrenia), she had her mercury fillings removed and fully recovered. The symptoms from mercury (heavy metal) poisoning are essentially asymptomatic (non-deterministic), so it affects different people differently at non-lethal amounts. FYI, another common (perhaps the major) symptom of mercury toxicity is (often undiagnosed, asymptomatic) CFS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which creeps up on you and can be debilitating.
I've had all my mercury (aka amalgam, silver) fillings replaced and would recommend doing so. If your sister has any silver/amalgam/mercury fillings, I'd suggest getting them removed --- for general health if not to address the possibility of causing symptoms of schizophrenia.
Not to complicate matters, but I'd also recommend going to a dentist who is not a quack (the silver filling fiasco has been abused by unscrupulous, incompetent dentists) but sensitive to the issue. Removal of mercury fillings can be toxic in itself, so extra measures can and should be taken including an air/water dam around tooth (to avoid swallowing any additional mercury) and a ventilator (to avoid inhaling mercury fumes as byproduct of drilling, removal).
And, no, the ADA (American Dental Association) won't corroborate any of this advice since, according to them, mercury (silver/amalgam) fillings are only toxic when outside your mouth (i.e., before filling, and after removal --- where it's required to be dealt with in toxic disposal!). (Can you say huge liability lawsuit (a la tobacco) for conflict of interest in supporting amalgam fillings?) Unfortunately, the NIH is no more accountable on this issue.
Best luck.
I sure would like to enlarge the title of this story by one letter!
My gaming group and I still play CTR (Crash Team Racing) for the PS1. Yes, there's a new version (for which we waited expectantly) but it's a total dog (new developer, poor game). The original CTR is so tightly programmed, it's still a classic. Old arcade classics don't die either. So, the backwards compatibility can be a strong feature, and I use it for CTR still.
>leeching off of somebody else's idea (by definition)
You do not understand patents. Patents are a legal monopoly granted based on patent application. They do not prevent anyone from having the same idea. Under current law, they do not even strive to guarantee the idea is original or novel. Many people can have the same idea, but the patent grants only one the monopoly.
See a problem? Especially when nothing should be patented.
By contrast, copyright allows for more than one person to express the same idea in the same way. There's no copyright violation if the accused can prove the form of expression was original.
See how that's better?
Patents do not mean what you think they mean. They're a legal term and a solution in search of a problem. Bottom line: they themselves are a problem (except for the legal industry and (I might add) USPTO bureaucracy who are thriving on them.
Good luck!
Patents are roadblocks to progress. There's nothing "necessary" about them at all. I would venture to say (in your own condescending tone) that "necessary" does not mean what you think it means, Paul.
Software patents are ludicrous. The establishment (legal industry) is in conflict of interest by perpetuating them. The software industry fought them when they were about to be institutionalized. A panel of lawyers from the USPTO headed by the bureaucratic Bruce Lehmann instituted them over the software industry's objections anyway. Frankly, I'm not sure that maneuver was even legal considering the huge conflict of interest and lack of representation on the panel's part.
It's not really your choice whether they're necessary. They're obviously not.
To anyone accomplished, experienced software engineer (and even those with foresight), software patents are an obstacle to progress and counterproductive to innovation.
Programming (much less innovating) is hard enough to do without adding a whole 'nother dimension (legal roadblocks) to the mix. Plus, most practical inventions are by necessity anyway. What do they say: necessity is the mother of invention?
Necessity leads to innovation; greed leads to patents.
Software (et al.) patents are essentially:
- legalized monopolies, and monopolies are bad.
- legal minefields for software initiatives, and mines are extremely counterproductive in (real and analogous) terms.
- an involuntary subsidy by the software industry for the self-serving legal industry.
- an impediment to open (and commercial) software development.
- an idea based solution to an implementation driven market (ideas are cheap; implementation is hard).
- a backwards implementation benefitting manipulators of the system, not the brilliance in innovation.
- an upside down system benefitting those with big pockets (and fat lawyers) instead of the underdogs (for whom patents were very originally intended).
- a joke in any industry (e.g., software) where production is a mere disk copy away (i.e., there is no manufacturing impediment in software, so even the original concept of patent protection is absurd)
- completely absurd to implement in theory (due to impossibility of any patent examiner's job) and practice considering the infinitude of like ideas in different forms (with patents as with novels, plots, etc.)
- absurd since software is a written form of thought --- and you shouldn't be able to patent (anything but especially) thoughts.
That's just off the top of my head.
IOW, patents are a Lehman (prounounced "lemon") law perpetuated so the legal industry can forcefeed carcinogenic lemonade to the software industry.
Despite liking BMW's, I'd say their choosing MS OS for their cars seems to dovetail with their latest love-hate designs of the new 7 and 5 series. Bangle seems to make very controversial decisions which even to the plainest view, have warts. MS OS seems to fit the Bangle model for feature-ful failed designs. I just hope BMW recovers sooner than later (the board should already have taken action but so it goes).
I hope the government forces car companies to label any car with an MS OS in it. Caveat emptor!
Steve, I just realized you were replying to my informative post (not just my claim that I've heard the differences). You must really dislike the idea that cables can make a difference. Wow!
It's funny, my favorite music is the emotionally evocative stuff, but when discussing it, I prefer a more rational discussion. It's definitely tough enough to discuss musicality intelligently without additional hurdles being imposed.
Cheers!
Nope, just knowing at the time whether you're listening to the system with $10,000 wires or the system with $10 wires.
This thread seems to bring out some very passive aggressive styles of rhetoric. I know you know what I was saying, but to make it absolutely clear...
Regardless of what the cables cost, you can hear the differences. For some of the subtleties, it takes acute hearing. For some, it's just more musical. For some differences, it takes an extended listening session, and then you can eventually figure out what the differences are (e.g., to explain why one setup is fatiguing, and the other isn't).
A trained ear can often pinpoint the differences without delay. I have two friends who can do so and explain it so well that I can figure out what I was hearing and agree with them. I don't know if it's from experience (e.g., knowing in part what to look for) or just raw sonic analytical skill, but it's definitely a (two-edged) gift.
I also know someone who is adamant that all CD players sound the same. Many of the people on this thread seem to be weighing in from that end of the spectrum.
To clarify even further, cost is not the driving factor for the differences in cables, and, to drive the point all the way home, neither is the price tag hanging off of the cables.
That's about as plain as my english gets. Take it or leave it.
Cheers.
Ok, I blew it in the opening sentence:
v iew.html
>The only time you'll likely hear a difference in cabling is in
>a highly tuned setup. Of course, that's the only time
>you'd likely find such cables anyway.
Actually, cabling can easily make a difference especially with less than proficient stereos! What I meant to say was:
The only time you'll hear the key differences with *ultra-high-end* cables is in a highly tuned setup.
IOW, the law of diminishing returns says that lesser cables are more than sufficient for lesser systems. Ultra-high-end cables only truly benefit genuinely high-end (not necessarily most expensive!) systems.
That probably muddies the water in an already fuzzy and ill-resolved discussion, but... I think it's closer to the mark.
Many people are skeptical that cables can (i.e., should) make any difference. OTOH, it's clear that a loose connection is audible. It's also clear that a frayed cable would be bad. It's not that hard to believe that a decent cable can be upgraded by a good cable when you consider the key importance cables have. They are the single transfer point between components, so they have full exposure to affect all aspects of the signal (for better or worse).
Then consider that components in audio equipment (especially amps and speakers) do not necessarily behave 'politely' at different frequencies and under different loads. In addition, consider that sound is very sensitive to temporal issues and distortion, and cables provide such distortion simply by virtue of their length. Now consider that, ideally, the cables would be a non-issue --- transparent sonically. Physically, they can't be, but they would be. Ultimately, you've got a conduit that is less than perfect even if it's pure copper. At best, it provides resistance and capacitance that modestly interferes with pure signal transmission.
Worst case, it echoes, rings, imperfectly transfers signals, misbehaves under different loads, has varying impedance for different frequency signals, etc.. Now add in the effect a cable has in *both* directions to the equipment it connects. Then cascade that effect back and forward through the stereo equipment... and then back into the cable itself (recursive distortion effects). Can you say non-linear dynamic systems! Now we're talking chaos.
Things in audio can easily get into audibly distorted range.
The $10k cables I've heard about
http://www.transparentcable.com/products/prodover
do not just try to transfer signal with utter transparency and temporal accuracy across all audible and superaudible frequency ranges, they also try to eliminate many of the causes of systemic distortion inherent to simple cables. The ultra-high-end cables actually contain hand-made filters specific to specific brands and models of components that will be attached to them. I have heard Transparent actually purchases components just so they can build cables for the components. Some of these components are tres cher! So, the cable development and tuning is not just a wire, it's test setup involving the components being connected combined with the manual labor to tune the individual cable for that specific equipment. (Actually, there's a whole lot more to Transparent cables as well, but you can check out the web site.)
Needless to say, the $10k is for more than your typical cable. The issues they address are arcane and specific to audio systems, but at the top-end become key isses which can only be addressed with appropriate measures/cables.
I hope that sheds some light on the original cabling question.
Cheers!