I think what he's getting at is this: "And the ink simply wiped off."
If the coating (which has the above effect) is applied to both sides, how will you label them? (as it stands, I use matte labels, but for quick copies (running out the door), the above situation may apply).
On a side note, I'm reading an interesting article from the University of Vienna which strengthens my arguments. Perhaps you should give it a read, and get back to me:
"You love the results? Blocked arteries and a figure like a walrus?"
6'2", 180lbs, work out every other day. My friends complain I do not eat enough (and they eat organic food all the time, somehow managing to put on more weight than me). Let's see, organic tofu salad, or filet mignon smothered in royal blue stilton cheese, hmm...
"The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship that happened to use the word "socialism" a lot in its mission statement."
No, they called themselves Communists, but never managed to get out of the Socialism phase.
"Holding it up as the pinnacle of socialist achievement is like holding up the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (hint: that's the one in the north) as the pinnacle of democracy."
I'm not holding it up as a pinnacle of Socialism, nor am I holding up the US as a pinnacle of Capitalism. Reread my comments.
"There is no shortage of states to the left of the USA that provide higher quality of life by any reasonable measure except adding up everyone's income and dividing by the population count (which is a pretty useless measure, as would become clear to anyone who saw my $10 million/year and your mom's-basement libertarian $12,500/year and heard us claim to be, on average, the two richest guys in the bar)."
This time, in english, without personal attacks. I'd love to reply, but I do not understand what you're saying.
I personally think that Socialism is unsustainable (and hence Canada and Sweden will have trouble). Keep in mind that Canada and Sweden are not full on Socialism (as it has been defined), simply that their socialistic elements eclipse their capitalistic elements.
To paraphrase the BOFH: BOFH: "The red light was the router which you bet me would not run on a three-phase powers supply" PFY: "And it didn't?" BOFH: "No, it did, but not for very long. About a minute and thirty seconds." PFY: "That's hardly fair!" BOFH: "Fair is fair."
Socialism works, but for only so long.
Think of capital as credit: you work (under capitalism) for a long time to build up great credit (pay for everything upfront, no or little debt). Then you quit your job (change capitalistic institutions over to socialism). Then you go wild, buying everything in sight (beginnings of socialism). Your credit eventually runs out, the bill comes, and you have no job (end of socialism).
I doubt Canada will be able to sustain itself (the cracks are beginning to show with the healthcare system), and Sweden I need to read a little more about. On the topic of healthcare systems, Canada is in a unique position: the country has told pharamcuticals it can and will violate their patents if they do not sell their drugs at manufacturing costs (i.e. the US ends up eating the R&D). The number of students entering med school is dropping, while the existing doctors are being lured away by the US.
When the gears finally stop (if the country doesn't swing back), the country has no money and very bad policies (which means no one wants to invest). It isn't until they remove those policies that capital starts flooding back in.
As it stands, I understand why a lot of people like socialism. And I understand why capitalism is often equated with corportism. I like neither, but understand them both: as an ultra-capitalist, I believe that whether I fall or rise, it is of my own accord, and I do not owe anything to anyone (nor do I want anyones help). That means I do not want the people (socialism) standing in my way, nor do I want companies (who happened to have the ear of a senator, corportism) standing in my way.
Socialists are often disillusioned with corportism, and believe that capitalism and corportism are one and the same. Corportists profess to be capitalists for just the same reason. I will not help you out, but nor will I keep you down. Standards of human conduct aside (if you're bleeding, I'll try to stop it, call and ambulance, etc. Or if you make me a decent business offer, I might lend you some money, etc.).
Sweden and Canada have not implemented all of the policies of the USSR nor in the same force (unless Sweden/Canada has a KGB element I am unaware of).
Quality of living and acquisition of capital are two sides of the same coin. What we have seen in Europe is a tradeoff-> capital for quality of living. Removing capital from the industry does not (really) affect the industry of today. The machines you see in factories are already or almost paid off. And you can create a lot of equality and raise the standard of living with that capital (that should have gone into the industry).
The problem is this: the industry is dynamic. It's always changing and upgrading. At some point, those machines will need upgrading. A company needs capital to buy new machines, employ more workers, expand into new markets.
This would all be dandy is everyone (i.e. every government was doing it). But they aren't. Instead, you have a little something called (overseas) competition. And those overseas companies will begin to eat their cake. The Japanese come up with better methods for making cars, cars that people want. The Big 3 American automakers futz around with unions, believing that people will buy their cars no matter what. They wake up one day and find half the market gone to the Japanese. They try to get back in the game by upgrading their machines, pushing their people. But they've grown weak with lack of competition, money taxed away to support quality of living. They cannot compete.
These companies generate less money, which means less money for "quality of living" taxing. Which starts a cycle downwards (people crying out that their "quality of living" is being affected, higher taxes).
Basically, capitalism works because of two things: it works even in part (the US is more capitalist than many other nations, hence it does better, but it would by no means be classified as an example of capitalism), and it has an incentive program, built in.
How many times have you heard people say that Socialism works, it's just the implementation that failed? Well guess what! Capitalism works, and even partial implementations work as well. You know you're on the right track when an engine can be feed very lean fuel, and it can still fire.
Putting aside worst case "dooms day" scenarios, is there anything wrong with a rise in temperature? I like heat, some people do not. If they are really attached to their climate, perhaps they could move further north?
Inequality is unfreedom? Is "unfreedom" a word? You know, there might be a reason why a (frictionless system) breaks down into such equalities: some people are better at giving other people what they want better than others.
For instance, I frequent Chilies, and I love their food (from the choices to the results). It's not Le Bec Fin, but it's a decent place to grab a bite to eat (average $16-22). Contrast that with any number of diners out there, lacking in business. Foods not terribly good, prices are ok, not much of an atmosphere. You see, Chilies gives people what they want, and so they grow($$$). What you argue is that they should all grow, equally. It's so a antithetical to...life, that you would have to redesign the universe from the ground up to support it.
The rights given to you are simple: no matter how much property you accumulate (from nothing to a lot), you have the same rights to it. Live for yourself, and the universe will take care of itself.
Lastly, while capitalism achieves inequality (with some people rich, and some people poor), and socialism does create equality, it's not in the manner that you think. Socialism, after a run of many years, creates equality by MAKING EVERYONE POOR. The U.S.S.R (putting aside the political figures) may have been one of the most equal states to ever exist, but I doubt the people saw it as that.
Hardly. Most people are born into the system, taught that it is the "best system in the world!", and never think to question it. And you can see where the populace agrees with you on the "freedom to not participate" when half the population will not vote.
Frankly, I like up front costs. Perhaps I think the roads suck; maybe everyone does as well. But once power is given up to the government, you may never get it back. There's no clause in the constitution that allows you to get that power back (lawmakers are like weasels, try finding one that doesn't lie), except the reset switch (2nd amendment).
Personal decisions are up to you (certain laws aside), but telling other people what to do with their property is incredible. Moral rights and all that.
"So there you are: Life, liberty, property. But I don't think you'd enjoy that life, in fact, I think you'd enjoy a more modern life where we enjoy the fruits of (pinko) co-operation and distributing the costs to everyone who profits from them."
Actually, I'd like the capitalist side of things, thanks for playing. Life, Liberty, and Property, not overridden by a bunch of pinko commies or socialists wannabes. Go back to the motherland (Russia) or take an economics course, then get back to me.
Wouldn't work, in much the same way as you going to Capital Hill and convincing the Senators to stop taking corporate money. Cold day in hell and all that.
Right. You know, I always wondered about democracy (versus what we have). In democracy, 50% + 1 of the population can screw over the other half (because it's democracy, mob rule).
What we have is supposedly better. A lot of those "self-evident truths" are being overridden lately, in the name of democracy (socialism/corporatism). When did life, liberty, and property go out of style?
The government has invested a significant amount of (you and your parent's) money (against your will), and in spite of that, you still take home a large paycheck.
It seems there is a lack of free will these days. You may benefit from something, but not want it: the same way hanging leeches on the side of your body may increase blood flow (a benefit!), but you probably want some say in that (certain rights override democracy: i.e. it's your body, and having broken no laws, you can do whatever the fuck you want to do with it).
"You are free to take advantage of all these resources at no cost up until you decide to profit from them, at which point we, the people expect a cut of your profits." -> So, I can use whatever I want, and not paying [anything]? Including taxes? If not, I guess they're not free, at which point, you do not get jack. You freeload off someone else.
My question is, how do we undo all this damage? I'll be honest, I live in PA, and I am willing to let any private contractor (and I mean anyone, so long as they can fill out the paperwork without too many misspellings) take over for PennDOT.
The list deals primarily with computer:student ratio (of computers owned by the school, not students). Idiotic test for "most connected campus".
Every student needs a computer at Drex. It's an absolute. And many people own multiple computers (workstation, server, laptop, PDA, etc.).
"Does the school provide Web pages?" -> Yes, you just have to ask.
"Does the school support handheld computers?" -> Yes, you add the MAC address to your account, same with all the other wireless devices.
"Does the school provide multimedia equipment?" -> Depends on what you mean by multimedia. Projector and speakers in (almost) every room. If you mean a MIDI synthesizer, I think we have a few over at CoMAD (College of Media Art and Design).
"Does the school offer courses in emerging technologies?" -> Yes. The ratio of old technologies: new technologies is still 10:1, but then that's how it should be.
"Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?" -> This is the only one I have to check on. Do we even have a campus radio station?
What I cannot believe is Temple being ranked higher than us. Yes, we are #1 for small and unsightly campuses (MIT is #2), but we also rank a lot higher in technology department. This is so wrong.
I suppose it's a bit like using a college ranking algorithm based on college football (how well the team did last year). Since we don't have a football team (engineers disbanded the team a while back "Revenge of the Nerds"), we would be ranked lowest. We have the fields, and club football, but the interscholastic stuff is gone.
I believe his mother was an investment banker, and his father a lawyer. That's not turning to the darkside, that's being born into it. I guess he had to come up with some way to top his parents.
Sounds horribly stupid: just another example of people with too much power. I cannot wait until people are taxed for breathing (environmentalist-> people give off CO2 -> need to reduce CO2 -> tax people for their CO2 'pollution').
This is great. But you are looking at the grant date (the date the patent was granted). The date you have to ice is the FILING date (1999). I.e. the date they filed their application (protection extends from this date, not the grant date).
Then let MS do it. Playing by free market principles is better than some state-induced regulation. Why? How can I be this cold? Easy. When the government exerts control over a market (in this case, against MS, in the name of 'competition'), it is only a matter of time before that government becomes infected (MS lobbyists, etc.), and now we have a much worse problem on our hands.
"It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small."
And what if the positions are reversed? What if a small company wants to spank a large company? If you want to drag MS into this, they rip off everyone. Try to take them to court, and now they get a free defense? WTF? Bill Gates thanks you.
"But your attitude seems to be don't worry if the patent office is too liberal, that's what the courts are for. No the courts are not there to do the patent office's job for it, and it's fairly clear that a judge's time is more valuable than a patent clerk's."
Hindsight is 20/20. No one can predict how a company/inventor may enforce their patent(s), nor can the USPTO track down every single piece of prior art out there. Their job is simply to do the best they can, given the circumstances (sleeping, eating, having a life). And, like the law of averages (where 50% of all people have below average intelligence), so too will the patent office always come under fire, no matter how tight their standards are.
"No, those are his morals. Something you apparently lack."
Again, with the same attack. Apparently having a different opinion than you is the equivalent of lacking morals. Wonderful, you'll make many friends.
"I'm not interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving. I'm more interested in hearing from someone who speaks about values and ethics -- even when it it hits them in the wallet."
Brilliant. I am interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving: that's how the market works. Greed = they want more than they have. Self-serving = they went it for themselves. Find me someone who is greedy, self-serving, and not stupid, and I will show you someone who has benefitted us more than any politician.
"No thanks. I'm not interested in a society where greed is rewarded monetarily. You shouldn't get to drive a nicer car than you neighbor simply because you chose to donate nothing to charity. All that the income tax system does is set the minimum participation level for you as a member of society. It keeps you from opting out of your societal obligations. Don't like it? Then move."
Hardly, I'd rather save the country from people who believe in "societal obligations". The income tax infringes on property rights, gives free money to a group of delinquants, and allows a bunch of politicians to feel like they've done something. If I work 40 hours a week as a doctor, and you work 20 hours a week at McDonalds, you better believe I will drive a nicer car than you. Want to get to my level? Take out a few loans, put yourself through medical school, then you can enjoy the benefits. Otherwise, shutup and sit down.
If you take away the advantages gained with working hard (or sap them to support others), you take away a few of the reasons for anyone to pursue that line of work. If a doctor, a teacher, and a plumber all make the same amount, who is going to put themselves through hell (medical school)? No one.
If you keep raising the income tax, who will work hard? No one. The top producers will either move away or give up. They will make enough to support themselves, and then stop.
People do not act unless they see benefits (i.e. money). Having a happy, warm feeling as a reward only works on a small portion of the population, and then only if they are not hungry. People's jobs are determined by the market: you get paid according to your perceived worth.
"So what? Bill Gates isn't going to close down Microsoft if his taxes go up by 5%."
Yes, but you are removing capital from the market. Mr Gates may wish to engage in a risky business decision (rewrite Windows from scratch), but in removing those funds, he will stay the course (less risky).
"It won't take away his incentive to be successful."
Yes, it does. Working for your own effort is fun, carrying someone elses lazy ass is not (slavery). Ever work on a group project? Ever do all the work yourself? Same idea. It breeds hate.
"I'd much rather see him shoulder a bit more of the tax burden than see someone having to forego medical insurance or warm clothing so that they can afford to pay their taxes."
Mr. Gates has a right to his money (property rights). Someone else does not have a right to medical insurance or warm clothing. Instead of raising taxes, how about telling that someone to get a job?
Different day, same old sh*t. Give a man a fish (welfare, social security, medicare), you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish (get a job), you feed him for a lifetime.
Re:All I know is...
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hmm. Returning money to those who earned it is immoral and unethical...yes, that is doubleplusungood.
Now, Mr. Buffet may be a philanthropist, and he may have *so much money* that he no longer knows where to put it, but that is his opinion. I imagine that if we asked Mr. Gates for his opinion, we may find an interesting contrast (note: Microsoft IS issuing dividends). And Mr. Gates is the leading philanthropist.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. How about we let people keep their own damn money, and let them decide whether to donate it to charity?
True. Interferon is nasty stuff in large quantities. But the point is that large infusions are not for people suffering from the common cold; it's for the people are going to die, giving them one last chance. Sure, they probably won't make it, but if you contract something like the Ebola Zaire strain (90% fatality rate), you'd like to throw everything + the kitchen sink at it. Knowing that interferon is a drug (albeit a synthesized version of the naturally occuring kind) that can help (the only one that works against viral threats), I'd go for it.
And you're right about Hep-C. A woman at a place I worked for was on the interferon treatment for a few years (she got Hep-C from a blood transfusion). Something about several shots a day, if I remember correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he's getting at is this: "And the ink simply wiped off."
If the coating (which has the above effect) is applied to both sides, how will you label them? (as it stands, I use matte labels, but for quick copies (running out the door), the above situation may apply).
On a side note, I'm reading an interesting article from the University of Vienna which strengthens my arguments. Perhaps you should give it a read, and get back to me:
v ie /viennp/vie0305.pdf
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Papers.Econ/RePEc/
"You love the results? Blocked arteries and a figure like a walrus?"
6'2", 180lbs, work out every other day. My friends complain I do not eat enough (and they eat organic food all the time, somehow managing to put on more weight than me). Let's see, organic tofu salad, or filet mignon smothered in royal blue stilton cheese, hmm...
"The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship that happened to use the word "socialism" a lot in its mission statement."
No, they called themselves Communists, but never managed to get out of the Socialism phase.
"Holding it up as the pinnacle of socialist achievement is like holding up the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (hint: that's the one in the north) as the pinnacle of democracy."
I'm not holding it up as a pinnacle of Socialism, nor am I holding up the US as a pinnacle of Capitalism. Reread my comments.
"There is no shortage of states to the left of the USA that provide higher quality of life by any reasonable measure except adding up everyone's income and dividing by the population count (which is a pretty useless measure, as would become clear to anyone who saw my $10 million/year and your mom's-basement libertarian $12,500/year and heard us claim to be, on average, the two richest guys in the bar)."
This time, in english, without personal attacks. I'd love to reply, but I do not understand what you're saying.
I personally think that Socialism is unsustainable (and hence Canada and Sweden will have trouble). Keep in mind that Canada and Sweden are not full on Socialism (as it has been defined), simply that their socialistic elements eclipse their capitalistic elements.
To paraphrase the BOFH:
BOFH: "The red light was the router which you bet me would not run on a three-phase powers supply"
PFY: "And it didn't?"
BOFH: "No, it did, but not for very long. About a minute and thirty seconds."
PFY: "That's hardly fair!"
BOFH: "Fair is fair."
Socialism works, but for only so long.
Think of capital as credit: you work (under capitalism) for a long time to build up great credit (pay for everything upfront, no or little debt). Then you quit your job (change capitalistic institutions over to socialism). Then you go wild, buying everything in sight (beginnings of socialism). Your credit eventually runs out, the bill comes, and you have no job (end of socialism).
I doubt Canada will be able to sustain itself (the cracks are beginning to show with the healthcare system), and Sweden I need to read a little more about. On the topic of healthcare systems, Canada is in a unique position: the country has told pharamcuticals it can and will violate their patents if they do not sell their drugs at manufacturing costs (i.e. the US ends up eating the R&D). The number of students entering med school is dropping, while the existing doctors are being lured away by the US.
When the gears finally stop (if the country doesn't swing back), the country has no money and very bad policies (which means no one wants to invest). It isn't until they remove those policies that capital starts flooding back in.
As it stands, I understand why a lot of people like socialism. And I understand why capitalism is often equated with corportism. I like neither, but understand them both: as an ultra-capitalist, I believe that whether I fall or rise, it is of my own accord, and I do not owe anything to anyone (nor do I want anyones help). That means I do not want the people (socialism) standing in my way, nor do I want companies (who happened to have the ear of a senator, corportism) standing in my way.
Socialists are often disillusioned with corportism, and believe that capitalism and corportism are one and the same. Corportists profess to be capitalists for just the same reason. I will not help you out, but nor will I keep you down. Standards of human conduct aside (if you're bleeding, I'll try to stop it, call and ambulance, etc. Or if you make me a decent business offer, I might lend you some money, etc.).
Sweden and Canada have not implemented all of the policies of the USSR nor in the same force (unless Sweden/Canada has a KGB element I am unaware of).
Quality of living and acquisition of capital are two sides of the same coin. What we have seen in Europe is a tradeoff-> capital for quality of living. Removing capital from the industry does not (really) affect the industry of today. The machines you see in factories are already or almost paid off. And you can create a lot of equality and raise the standard of living with that capital (that should have gone into the industry).
The problem is this: the industry is dynamic. It's always changing and upgrading. At some point, those machines will need upgrading. A company needs capital to buy new machines, employ more workers, expand into new markets.
This would all be dandy is everyone (i.e. every government was doing it). But they aren't. Instead, you have a little something called (overseas) competition. And those overseas companies will begin to eat their cake. The Japanese come up with better methods for making cars, cars that people want. The Big 3 American automakers futz around with unions, believing that people will buy their cars no matter what. They wake up one day and find half the market gone to the Japanese. They try to get back in the game by upgrading their machines, pushing their people. But they've grown weak with lack of competition, money taxed away to support quality of living. They cannot compete.
These companies generate less money, which means less money for "quality of living" taxing. Which starts a cycle downwards (people crying out that their "quality of living" is being affected, higher taxes).
Basically, capitalism works because of two things: it works even in part (the US is more capitalist than many other nations, hence it does better, but it would by no means be classified as an example of capitalism), and it has an incentive program, built in.
How many times have you heard people say that Socialism works, it's just the implementation that failed? Well guess what! Capitalism works, and even partial implementations work as well. You know you're on the right track when an engine can be feed very lean fuel, and it can still fire.
Hahahaha...hahaha..ha. That's rich. No, I think the WSJ is the most respected newspaper in the world. The NYT is considerably less.
Putting aside worst case "dooms day" scenarios, is there anything wrong with a rise in temperature? I like heat, some people do not. If they are really attached to their climate, perhaps they could move further north?
Inequality is unfreedom? Is "unfreedom" a word? You know, there might be a reason why a (frictionless system) breaks down into such equalities: some people are better at giving other people what they want better than others.
For instance, I frequent Chilies, and I love their food (from the choices to the results). It's not Le Bec Fin, but it's a decent place to grab a bite to eat (average $16-22). Contrast that with any number of diners out there, lacking in business. Foods not terribly good, prices are ok, not much of an atmosphere. You see, Chilies gives people what they want, and so they grow($$$). What you argue is that they should all grow, equally. It's so a antithetical to...life, that you would have to redesign the universe from the ground up to support it.
The rights given to you are simple: no matter how much property you accumulate (from nothing to a lot), you have the same rights to it. Live for yourself, and the universe will take care of itself.
Lastly, while capitalism achieves inequality (with some people rich, and some people poor), and socialism does create equality, it's not in the manner that you think. Socialism, after a run of many years, creates equality by MAKING EVERYONE POOR. The U.S.S.R (putting aside the political figures) may have been one of the most equal states to ever exist, but I doubt the people saw it as that.
Hardly. Most people are born into the system, taught that it is the "best system in the world!", and never think to question it. And you can see where the populace agrees with you on the "freedom to not participate" when half the population will not vote.
Frankly, I like up front costs. Perhaps I think the roads suck; maybe everyone does as well. But once power is given up to the government, you may never get it back. There's no clause in the constitution that allows you to get that power back (lawmakers are like weasels, try finding one that doesn't lie), except the reset switch (2nd amendment).
Personal decisions are up to you (certain laws aside), but telling other people what to do with their property is incredible. Moral rights and all that.
"So there you are: Life, liberty, property. But I don't think you'd enjoy that life, in fact, I think you'd enjoy a more modern life where we enjoy the fruits of (pinko) co-operation and distributing the costs to everyone who profits from them."
Actually, I'd like the capitalist side of things, thanks for playing. Life, Liberty, and Property, not overridden by a bunch of pinko commies or socialists wannabes. Go back to the motherland (Russia) or take an economics course, then get back to me.
Wouldn't work, in much the same way as you going to Capital Hill and convincing the Senators to stop taking corporate money. Cold day in hell and all that.
Right. You know, I always wondered about democracy (versus what we have). In democracy, 50% + 1 of the population can screw over the other half (because it's democracy, mob rule).
What we have is supposedly better. A lot of those "self-evident truths" are being overridden lately, in the name of democracy (socialism/corporatism). When did life, liberty, and property go out of style?
The government has invested a significant amount of (you and your parent's) money (against your will), and in spite of that, you still take home a large paycheck.
It seems there is a lack of free will these days. You may benefit from something, but not want it: the same way hanging leeches on the side of your body may increase blood flow (a benefit!), but you probably want some say in that (certain rights override democracy: i.e. it's your body, and having broken no laws, you can do whatever the fuck you want to do with it).
"You are free to take advantage of all these resources at no cost up until you decide to profit from them, at which point we, the people expect a cut of your profits." -> So, I can use whatever I want, and not paying [anything]? Including taxes? If not, I guess they're not free, at which point, you do not get jack. You freeload off someone else.
My question is, how do we undo all this damage? I'll be honest, I live in PA, and I am willing to let any private contractor (and I mean anyone, so long as they can fill out the paperwork without too many misspellings) take over for PennDOT.
As does Drexel.
The list deals primarily with computer:student ratio (of computers owned by the school, not students). Idiotic test for "most connected campus".
Every student needs a computer at Drex. It's an absolute. And many people own multiple computers (workstation, server, laptop, PDA, etc.).
"Does the school provide Web pages?" -> Yes, you just have to ask.
"Does the school support handheld computers?" -> Yes, you add the MAC address to your account, same with all the other wireless devices.
"Does the school provide multimedia equipment?" -> Depends on what you mean by multimedia. Projector and speakers in (almost) every room. If you mean a MIDI synthesizer, I think we have a few over at CoMAD (College of Media Art and Design).
"Does the school offer courses in emerging technologies?" -> Yes. The ratio of old technologies: new technologies is still 10:1, but then that's how it should be.
"Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?" -> This is the only one I have to check on. Do we even have a campus radio station?
What I cannot believe is Temple being ranked higher than us. Yes, we are #1 for small and unsightly campuses (MIT is #2), but we also rank a lot higher in technology department. This is so wrong.
I suppose it's a bit like using a college ranking algorithm based on college football (how well the team did last year). Since we don't have a football team (engineers disbanded the team a while back "Revenge of the Nerds"), we would be ranked lowest. We have the fields, and club football, but the interscholastic stuff is gone.
I believe his mother was an investment banker, and his father a lawyer. That's not turning to the darkside, that's being born into it. I guess he had to come up with some way to top his parents.
I'll assume that your talking about NTFS file permissions...
On a Windows XP box, disable "Simple Sharing". After a quick reboot, right-clicking on a file shows the standard NTFS File & Share permissions.
Yes: you do not have to show a schematic. You need only describe it in sufficent detail such that a person skilled in the art could understand it.
So if you have an AIW card, you'll be taxed?
Sounds horribly stupid: just another example of people with too much power. I cannot wait until people are taxed for breathing (environmentalist-> people give off CO2 -> need to reduce CO2 -> tax people for their CO2 'pollution').
2001 is the grant date.
1999 is the filing date (the date that matters).
Thanks for playing the prior art game, play again!
This is great. But you are looking at the grant date (the date the patent was granted). The date you have to ice is the FILING date (1999). I.e. the date they filed their application (protection extends from this date, not the grant date).
Then let MS do it. Playing by free market principles is better than some state-induced regulation. Why? How can I be this cold? Easy. When the government exerts control over a market (in this case, against MS, in the name of 'competition'), it is only a matter of time before that government becomes infected (MS lobbyists, etc.), and now we have a much worse problem on our hands.
Wrong.
"It shouldn't be cheap. It should free, and it should cost the defendant no time at all. Otherwise it still disproportionately favors big business over small."
And what if the positions are reversed? What if a small company wants to spank a large company? If you want to drag MS into this, they rip off everyone. Try to take them to court, and now they get a free defense? WTF? Bill Gates thanks you.
"But your attitude seems to be don't worry if the patent office is too liberal, that's what the courts are for. No the courts are not there to do the patent office's job for it, and it's fairly clear that a judge's time is more valuable than a patent clerk's."
Hindsight is 20/20. No one can predict how a company/inventor may enforce their patent(s), nor can the USPTO track down every single piece of prior art out there. Their job is simply to do the best they can, given the circumstances (sleeping, eating, having a life). And, like the law of averages (where 50% of all people have below average intelligence), so too will the patent office always come under fire, no matter how tight their standards are.
"No, those are his morals. Something you apparently lack."
Again, with the same attack. Apparently having a different opinion than you is the equivalent of lacking morals. Wonderful, you'll make many friends.
"I'm not interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving. I'm more interested in hearing from someone who speaks about values and ethics -- even when it it hits them in the wallet."
Brilliant. I am interested in finding someone greedy and self-serving: that's how the market works. Greed = they want more than they have. Self-serving = they went it for themselves. Find me someone who is greedy, self-serving, and not stupid, and I will show you someone who has benefitted us more than any politician.
"No thanks. I'm not interested in a society where greed is rewarded monetarily. You shouldn't get to drive a nicer car than you neighbor simply because you chose to donate nothing to charity. All that the income tax system does is set the minimum participation level for you as a member of society. It keeps you from opting out of your societal obligations. Don't like it? Then move."
Hardly, I'd rather save the country from people who believe in "societal obligations". The income tax infringes on property rights, gives free money to a group of delinquants, and allows a bunch of politicians to feel like they've done something. If I work 40 hours a week as a doctor, and you work 20 hours a week at McDonalds, you better believe I will drive a nicer car than you. Want to get to my level? Take out a few loans, put yourself through medical school, then you can enjoy the benefits. Otherwise, shutup and sit down.
If you take away the advantages gained with working hard (or sap them to support others), you take away a few of the reasons for anyone to pursue that line of work. If a doctor, a teacher, and a plumber all make the same amount, who is going to put themselves through hell (medical school)? No one.
If you keep raising the income tax, who will work hard? No one. The top producers will either move away or give up. They will make enough to support themselves, and then stop.
People do not act unless they see benefits (i.e. money). Having a happy, warm feeling as a reward only works on a small portion of the population, and then only if they are not hungry. People's jobs are determined by the market: you get paid according to your perceived worth.
"So what? Bill Gates isn't going to close down Microsoft if his taxes go up by 5%."
Yes, but you are removing capital from the market. Mr Gates may wish to engage in a risky business decision (rewrite Windows from scratch), but in removing those funds, he will stay the course (less risky).
"It won't take away his incentive to be successful."
Yes, it does. Working for your own effort is fun, carrying someone elses lazy ass is not (slavery). Ever work on a group project? Ever do all the work yourself? Same idea. It breeds hate.
"I'd much rather see him shoulder a bit more of the tax burden than see someone having to forego medical insurance or warm clothing so that they can afford to pay their taxes."
Mr. Gates has a right to his money (property rights). Someone else does not have a right to medical insurance or warm clothing. Instead of raising taxes, how about telling that someone to get a job?
Different day, same old sh*t. Give a man a fish (welfare, social security, medicare), you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish (get a job), you feed him for a lifetime.
Hmm. Returning money to those who earned it is immoral and unethical...yes, that is doubleplusungood.
Now, Mr. Buffet may be a philanthropist, and he may have *so much money* that he no longer knows where to put it, but that is his opinion. I imagine that if we asked Mr. Gates for his opinion, we may find an interesting contrast (note: Microsoft IS issuing dividends). And Mr. Gates is the leading philanthropist.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. How about we let people keep their own damn money, and let them decide whether to donate it to charity?
True. Interferon is nasty stuff in large quantities. But the point is that large infusions are not for people suffering from the common cold; it's for the people are going to die, giving them one last chance. Sure, they probably won't make it, but if you contract something like the Ebola Zaire strain (90% fatality rate), you'd like to throw everything + the kitchen sink at it. Knowing that interferon is a drug (albeit a synthesized version of the naturally occuring kind) that can help (the only one that works against viral threats), I'd go for it.
And you're right about Hep-C. A woman at a place I worked for was on the interferon treatment for a few years (she got Hep-C from a blood transfusion). Something about several shots a day, if I remember correctly.