Finally, I don'twant an argument on health care reform or HR 3200 at my website
Then you shouldn't have talked about it. Pick an older law, or show multiple examples.
Bringing up Health Care law when we're arguing about it is like bringing up the Civil Rights Act the middle of the civil rights movement. By mentioning it at all, you open the arena for discussion of it.
Oh, and for the record -- law isn't software, it's game design. The closest you'll ever get is networking and interoperability standards. But even those are bad, due to the essentially soft nature of law.
That [By the Corporations, for the Corporations.] is your sig and you are suggesting kieth olbermann?
Olbermann & co--and O'Riley & co on the other side of the aisle--are hardly the face of corporate media. They are both big fish in the fairly small pond of cable news punditry, but both are overwhelmed by the audience figures of the "mainstream" news outlets -- NBC proper, ABC, CBS, and other broadcast networks. Heck, I think they're looked down on, in journalistic respect, by late-night comedians.
This lets them both do just about exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect -- stand up and scream bloody murder when they see something they feel is done wrong.
Oh, and so long as the subject isn't MSNBC, NBC, or GE, Olbernman's a perfectly good source beyond any sensible reproach. I mean, unless you think CNN's doing it right, with their "let's cover two sides with no comment when one starts lying" theory.
They are the ones who sometimes stop crimes before the police arrive. They are the ones who have CCW permits and stop deranged sociopaths who are going on public murder sprees before they can kill or before they can kill as many people as they'd like to.
They are ALSO the ones shooting up the veteran's center in DC, killing a doctor as he was ushering in church, driving around killing random people from the back of a car, or just going on a rampage and shooting up a university, day care, or high school.
Go count the number of previously lawful gun owners who decided to go "un-lawful" at the cost of someone else's life, and then count those same rampages that were ended by a civilian with a legal firearm. Then we can go have a rational discussion about gun control.
(I'm all for an absolute record of weapons, btw, from manufacture to the end user, preferably with tagged bullets. You can have any gun you want, so long as your neighbors know you have it and the police can come looking for you when someone's shot with the same gun you have.)
I have the hope that should a resistance ever build up, an enlisted man would refuse the order to launch unmanned planes armed with dirty bombs against some American citizens on American private property.
Enlisted? Pshaw.
If you have another American Revolution or Civil War, it will by nature require the participation of a significant portion of the professional -- i.e., officer-- class of the military. You know, just like our founding revolution and sole significant civil war did.
This is why anyone in uniform is forbidden from expressing a political view, btw.
Possession of firearms was clearly linked, for that reason, to membership in a militia.
No, it wasn't. "linked", maybe, but hardly "clearly linked." If the founders had wanted bearing arms to be contingent on belonging to a militia, they would have listed that.
You have an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms BECAUSE we need militias to ensure a free state. And by its very nature, a militia has to be separate from the state or federal government.
All you need to do is read Obama's own words about the Supreme court decision in the DC gun control case to get an idea of where he stands.
The President is not a King. He can have any opinion he wants, up to and including favoring a repeal of the 2nd amendment, and it doesn't matter jack shit until he can sell Congress on it. He also is on record as favoring a single-payer system, but if you notice that option wasn't even seriously considered for health care reform.
As for the free speech zones, they were originally implemented by the democrats and historically used by them until your selective memory singled out Bush.
Responsible gun ownership IS possible, but there is no way that carrying as you go about your day to day business is responsible.
Depends on your day to day business -- what you do & where you do it.
Also depends on what you carry & how you carry it. (In a holster on your belt? With a trigger lock in your briefcase? In your car under a seat?)
You have the right to carry because there might be a good reason for you to do so. But if everyone carried without a good reason, well - I'm just saying...
In America, we have the right to bear arms for three reasons. In descending order of importance:
3: To hunt for game. 2: To repel foreign invaders and criminals. 1: To rebel against native tyranny.
This is local. What's happening on a global (ok, universal) scale is that the universe is expanding and after 100 trillion years all the hydrogen will be used up and there will be no more stars (or at least very few of them) and 10^whatever years after that the universe will just be a bunch of black holes slowly oozing out Hawking radiation. Very bleak.
So says the species that still thinks there is "Dark matter" and "dark energy" out there somewhere.
Physicists don't like to dwell on this point when summarizing what their research accomplished, but we really don't know enough to be definitive about how the universe will evolve. To wit: our LOCAL time-cone appears to be expanding, and if (1) this observation is correct, (2) the universe is homogenous to our time-cone, and (3) there isn't some exterior force pushing us together, then we'll all wind up in a cold death in the end.
For all we know, the vacuum of space might just have a slight red-tint to it, causing this "red-shift" that makes us think the universe is expanding. It's not like we have rulers or anything.
God - whether such an entity exists or not - has nothing to do with it, it's an entirely natural motion, predicted, expected, and surprising no one with sufficient education.
our universe makes sense.
Whether or not this is due to god's existence or the clever realization that we wouldn't be here if it didn't is a religious question. However, I'm pretty sure that if God DOES exist, He definitely has something to do with two galaxys colliding -- He either purposefully caused them to collide as a means of saying "hi", or He wrote the rules that cause them to do so.
Employees are. But the specific work they're doing probably isn't.
We need a $0 minimum wage, along with a real reverse-taxation welfare system. Let teh workers withhold work without starving, and you'll suddenly see the real market value of labor.
A great example of this was Wizards of the Coast's "patent" on card game mechanics [uspto.gov], to wit "The method of claim 3, wherein said step of designating one or more of the cards comprises rotating the one or more cards on the playing surface from an original orientation to a second orientation", which under a proper analysis done by any COMPETENT and non-overworked patent attorney should have been invalidated by prior art by the collected works of one Edmund Hoyle [wikipedia.org] over two hundred years ago.
Please provide example of a card game before Magic -- ANY game -- where rotating a card has meaning in play. I know of games where laying cards atop each other matters, and where flipping cards over matters, but none where rotation does.
I have been thinking lately, (don't let that scare you), that instead of the patent system granting exclusive rights, it should grant exclusive royalties.,
No. The government should not dictate how much a patent is worth -- which is the effect of what you suggest.
Patents (and copyright) are a way of giving market value to creative effort. Any "reform" of either that removes the absolute ability of the inventor (author) to control whom uses their IP removes said IP from the market, and instead makes it a form of government regulation.
Should patents and copyright be reformed, to make some things which are currently protected (business methods & software respectively) not eligible for them? Yes. But should the basic idea be altered? Not unless you're also going to make big changes to our market-based system.
(Yes, software should not be covered by copyright -- it should be governed by a design patent, same as any other product of engineering.)
OB Disclaimre: I am an Slashdot know-it-all pretend lawyer and thus not allowed to legally recommend or make legal recommendations whatsoever - hence the above is my opinions and should not be interpreted as legal advice.
Legal advice is telling someone that "oh, that's X, and you should do Y.", not "X means..." or "X is not a good idea."
The day when a layperson cannot advise another on their understanding of the law as written, rather than how it applies to specific facts, is the day we have left democracy and entered tyranny. (Heck, you can even go ahead and tell someone "That's X and you should sue!" and have it not be "practice of law." But let's just keep it simple.)
That saiod, document it's inventor dates, and copies of original information and maikl them to your self.
NO. A postmark is not a notarized date. You could very easily mail an empty envelope to yourself, unsealed, and then seal it up.
To establish that you have something at a specific date, find someone who's a notary in your state who doesn't know you, and pay them the $1 to notarize it. Or just keep good records.
No, I Robot is a musing on the utter inadequacy of a simple set of rules to reflect any sort of morality - there's always some conflict between what the rules allow and what's right.
no, not really. You just need to write more than three of them.
Asimov's whole premise would have been destroyed by a simple "Rule 0: no robot may perform a task beyond its design."
That would be the same OpenOffice that uses custom XML in its file formats, would it?
Wait, OOo has support for CustomXML? -- that is, you throw an arbitrary XML file into a file via computer magic, and then you can write an XPath/Xquery reference to show the contents in your formatted OOo file?
Are you joking? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Their sentence may have been light, but they were convicted of a criminal offense.
NO.
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and to have committed the CIVIL wrong of using said monopoly to improperly affect other markets.
If they had been found guilty of being a criminal organization -- you know, one that commits crimes by way of its business -- there wouldn't be a Microsoft right now, because their corporate charter would have been revoked, all their stock would have become worthless, and there'd be a big chunk out of the national debt.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, I don'twant an argument on health care reform or HR 3200 at my website
Then you shouldn't have talked about it. Pick an older law, or show multiple examples.
Bringing up Health Care law when we're arguing about it is like bringing up the Civil Rights Act the middle of the civil rights movement. By mentioning it at all, you open the arena for discussion of it.
Oh, and for the record -- law isn't software, it's game design. The closest you'll ever get is networking and interoperability standards. But even those are bad, due to the essentially soft nature of law.
That [By the Corporations, for the Corporations.] is your sig and you are suggesting kieth olbermann?
Olbermann & co--and O'Riley & co on the other side of the aisle--are hardly the face of corporate media. They are both big fish in the fairly small pond of cable news punditry, but both are overwhelmed by the audience figures of the "mainstream" news outlets -- NBC proper, ABC, CBS, and other broadcast networks. Heck, I think they're looked down on, in journalistic respect, by late-night comedians.
This lets them both do just about exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect -- stand up and scream bloody murder when they see something they feel is done wrong.
Oh, and so long as the subject isn't MSNBC, NBC, or GE, Olbernman's a perfectly good source beyond any sensible reproach. I mean, unless you think CNN's doing it right, with their "let's cover two sides with no comment when one starts lying" theory.
They are the ones who sometimes stop crimes before the police arrive. They are the ones who have CCW permits and stop deranged sociopaths who are going on public murder sprees before they can kill or before they can kill as many people as they'd like to.
They are ALSO the ones shooting up the veteran's center in DC, killing a doctor as he was ushering in church, driving around killing random people from the back of a car, or just going on a rampage and shooting up a university, day care, or high school.
Go count the number of previously lawful gun owners who decided to go "un-lawful" at the cost of someone else's life, and then count those same rampages that were ended by a civilian with a legal firearm. Then we can go have a rational discussion about gun control.
(I'm all for an absolute record of weapons, btw, from manufacture to the end user, preferably with tagged bullets. You can have any gun you want, so long as your neighbors know you have it and the police can come looking for you when someone's shot with the same gun you have.)
I have the hope that should a resistance ever build up, an enlisted man would refuse the order to launch unmanned planes armed with dirty bombs against some American citizens on American private property.
Enlisted? Pshaw.
If you have another American Revolution or Civil War, it will by nature require the participation of a significant portion of the professional -- i.e., officer-- class of the military. You know, just like our founding revolution and sole significant civil war did.
This is why anyone in uniform is forbidden from expressing a political view, btw.
Possession of firearms was clearly linked, for that reason, to membership in a militia.
No, it wasn't. "linked", maybe, but hardly "clearly linked." If the founders had wanted bearing arms to be contingent on belonging to a militia, they would have listed that.
You have an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms BECAUSE we need militias to ensure a free state. And by its very nature, a militia has to be separate from the state or federal government.
Why do so many people refuse to accept that just because someone doesn't support Obama, they are automatically right-wing/republican/Bush fan?
Because some 99% of America boils down to right wing/left wing. Or, if you prefer, "group minded liberties" vs. "individual correct behavior"
If you don't support Obama, and didn't support Bush, then you're in the small 1% of the country that the rest of us safely ignore.
All you need to do is read Obama's own words about the Supreme court decision in the DC gun control case to get an idea of where he stands.
The President is not a King. He can have any opinion he wants, up to and including favoring a repeal of the 2nd amendment, and it doesn't matter jack shit until he can sell Congress on it. He also is on record as favoring a single-payer system, but if you notice that option wasn't even seriously considered for health care reform.
As for the free speech zones, they were originally implemented by the democrats and historically used by them until your selective memory singled out Bush.
Link, please. I've NEVER heard this before.
My favorite quote of the recent political season: "I have the facts on my side. You have Glen Beck."
Responsible gun ownership IS possible, but there is no way that carrying as you go about your day to day business is responsible.
Depends on your day to day business -- what you do & where you do it.
Also depends on what you carry & how you carry it. (In a holster on your belt? With a trigger lock in your briefcase? In your car under a seat?)
You have the right to carry because there might be a good reason for you to do so. But if everyone carried without a good reason, well - I'm just saying...
In America, we have the right to bear arms for three reasons. In descending order of importance:
3: To hunt for game.
2: To repel foreign invaders and criminals.
1: To rebel against native tyranny.
If you think Sanderson is not getting a full share of the royalties, you're deluding yourself.
This is local. What's happening on a global (ok, universal) scale is that the universe is expanding and after 100 trillion years all the hydrogen will be used up and there will be no more stars (or at least very few of them) and 10^whatever years after that the universe will just be a bunch of black holes slowly oozing out Hawking radiation. Very bleak.
So says the species that still thinks there is "Dark matter" and "dark energy" out there somewhere.
Physicists don't like to dwell on this point when summarizing what their research accomplished, but we really don't know enough to be definitive about how the universe will evolve. To wit: our LOCAL time-cone appears to be expanding, and if (1) this observation is correct, (2) the universe is homogenous to our time-cone, and (3) there isn't some exterior force pushing us together, then we'll all wind up in a cold death in the end.
For all we know, the vacuum of space might just have a slight red-tint to it, causing this "red-shift" that makes us think the universe is expanding. It's not like we have rulers or anything.
God - whether such an entity exists or not - has nothing to do with it, it's an entirely natural motion, predicted, expected, and surprising no one with sufficient education.
our universe makes sense.
Whether or not this is due to god's existence or the clever realization that we wouldn't be here if it didn't is a religious question. However, I'm pretty sure that if God DOES exist, He definitely has something to do with two galaxys colliding -- He either purposefully caused them to collide as a means of saying "hi", or He wrote the rules that cause them to do so.
If employees aren't worth 'a living wage'
Employees are. But the specific work they're doing probably isn't.
We need a $0 minimum wage, along with a real reverse-taxation welfare system. Let teh workers withhold work without starving, and you'll suddenly see the real market value of labor.
So it should be someone else's job, someone else (or even many someones) who can keep costs down
Whenever you see cost overruns, you're seeing "someone else" running the price up.
Government can be amazingly effecient -- if you can cut through "procurement" and "government contractgors."
Wait, the pre comes rooted?
So close to as to not matter.
A great example of this was Wizards of the Coast's "patent" on card game mechanics [uspto.gov], to wit "The method of claim 3, wherein said step of designating one or more of the cards comprises rotating the one or more cards on the playing surface from an original orientation to a second orientation", which under a proper analysis done by any COMPETENT and non-overworked patent attorney should have been invalidated by prior art by the collected works of one Edmund Hoyle [wikipedia.org] over two hundred years ago.
Please provide example of a card game before Magic -- ANY game -- where rotating a card has meaning in play. I know of games where laying cards atop each other matters, and where flipping cards over matters, but none where rotation does.
If not, STFU, it's a valid patent.
I have been thinking lately, (don't let that scare you), that instead of the patent system granting exclusive rights, it should grant exclusive royalties.,
No. The government should not dictate how much a patent is worth -- which is the effect of what you suggest.
Patents (and copyright) are a way of giving market value to creative effort. Any "reform" of either that removes the absolute ability of the inventor (author) to control whom uses their IP removes said IP from the market, and instead makes it a form of government regulation.
Should patents and copyright be reformed, to make some things which are currently protected (business methods & software respectively) not eligible for them? Yes. But should the basic idea be altered? Not unless you're also going to make big changes to our market-based system.
(Yes, software should not be covered by copyright -- it should be governed by a design patent, same as any other product of engineering.)
Most tech is useless after 3 or 4 years, let alone ten years.
consumer-level tech is essentially value-less after 10 years... but it's not useless any more than a chalkboard is.
... a badly written child's fantasy world ....
Now now, Tolkien's Middle-earth was a badly-written ADULT'S fantasy world.
OB Disclaimre: I am an Slashdot know-it-all pretend lawyer and thus not allowed to legally recommend or make legal recommendations whatsoever - hence the above is my opinions and should not be interpreted as legal advice.
Legal advice is telling someone that "oh, that's X, and you should do Y.", not "X means..." or "X is not a good idea."
The day when a layperson cannot advise another on their understanding of the law as written, rather than how it applies to specific facts, is the day we have left democracy and entered tyranny. (Heck, you can even go ahead and tell someone "That's X and you should sue!" and have it not be "practice of law." But let's just keep it simple.)
That saiod, document it's inventor dates, and copies of original information and maikl them to your self.
NO. A postmark is not a notarized date. You could very easily mail an empty envelope to yourself, unsealed, and then seal it up.
To establish that you have something at a specific date, find someone who's a notary in your state who doesn't know you, and pay them the $1 to notarize it. Or just keep good records.
No, I Robot is a musing on the utter inadequacy of a simple set of rules to reflect any sort of morality - there's always some conflict between what the rules allow and what's right.
no, not really. You just need to write more than three of them.
Asimov's whole premise would have been destroyed by a simple "Rule 0: no robot may perform a task beyond its design."
That would be the same OpenOffice that uses custom XML in its file formats, would it?
Wait, OOo has support for CustomXML? -- that is, you throw an arbitrary XML file into a file via computer magic, and then you can write an XPath/Xquery reference to show the contents in your formatted OOo file?
No?
Then STFU,.
If someone steals a car, and I bought that car from the person, the original owner is still the owner of the car.
Maybe. Depending on where you are & how long this took place, you might be just fine -- although "the person" owes "the owner" $$.
Are you joking? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Their sentence may have been light, but they were convicted of a criminal offense.
NO.
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and to have committed the CIVIL wrong of using said monopoly to improperly affect other markets.
If they had been found guilty of being a criminal organization -- you know, one that commits crimes by way of its business -- there wouldn't be a Microsoft right now, because their corporate charter would have been revoked, all their stock would have become worthless, and there'd be a big chunk out of the national debt.