The failures in Vietnam and Iraq were not military failures...they were political. The politicians thought they were better warfighters than the warfighters, and they were wrong.
Frankly, I think that the Iraq debacle has ruined the opportunity for the US to be an actual liberator in places like Darfur and North Korea. Those regions are going to have to rely on the UN, which means they're boned.
The best part about vigilante action is that we get rid of that pesky "due process" and "habeas corpus" nonsense. Heck, if I decide you're guilty, you're not really due any process at all, are you?
Your ideas fascinate me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yes, my.sig is true. Yes, I know more about aerodynamics than the average bear. Yes, the angle of attack is the angle that the air meets the airfoil section. No, reading a Wikipedia article does not make you well versed enough on this topic to refute my argument.
"You can't patent an idea ("hey, let's make a flying machine", or "hey, let's compress audio data") and prevent anyone else from doing the same."
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that that is demonstrably not true. The historical precedent I cite (Wright Bros. and Glenn Curtiss) is the specific example about which I know the most, but other examples from recent history are even more obvious (see RIM vs. NTP, RIM vs. Palm, Amazon's one-click, etc.)
You are talking about the way patent law might should wanna oughtta be. I am talking about historical realities.
Ailerons change the camber of a section of wing, changing its coefficient of lift. That does not directly change the angle of attack of the wing. (I make the generous assumption that you a) know what angle of attack is, and b) are in fact talking about angle of attack when you say "angle the wing presents to the air")
You are arguing with somebody who has a much better theoretical, practical, and historical understanding of this topic than you do. You really ought to either a) stop arguing and start asking intelligent questions, or b) give up and argue with somebody more poorly informed.
You clearly have no understanding of how this actually played out. The Wright Brothers patent was held to cover any mechanism of controlling an aircraft about its longitudinal (roll) axis. You can't have an airplane without roll control. Glenn Curtiss used a completely different (and arguably superior) technique that you might have heard of: It's called an aileron. The Wrights twisted the entire wing structure to provide (poor) roll control. The mechanisms were completely different, but the Wright's patent still very nearly put Curtiss out of business, until the US Gov't nationalized the Wrights' patent in the run-up to World War I, since the Wright aircraft were no longer state of the art, and they weren't interested in developing more advanced models.
So, again, you're mistaken.
"conceptually, patents are for specific methods and not general concepts"
"really don't understand our liberties, nor do they really understand what the founding fathers were trying to create"
You give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they understand EXACTLY what they're doing, and they are explicitly trying to destroy the foundations of this country.
OK, but "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights".
I don't agree that the Founders were a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists, as the Right is trying to cast them now. But you're being obtuse if you argue that the Founders did not assert a Divine Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You're free to have issue with the Divine part, but the rest of it reads pretty well to me.
Let me state this baldly: Defending America's ideals is more important than defending America. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, no. But it is the founding charter for the authority of government, and is therefore the thing that makes America America.
So, yes. If the choice is "Shred the Constitution" or "Lose my home town" (which is a remarkably stupid and false dichotomy), then I would absolutely choose "Lose my home town".
But, you see, that's not how patents actually work. These patent abusers ARE patenting the idea of "one click ordering", or "email over wireless", or "a pretty small keyboard you work with your thumbs", or (going old school) "longitudinal flight control of a powered aircraft". We're NOT talking about specific implementations. Any way of solving these problems has been deemed to be infringing on these various patents.
Come on, don't put words in my mouth. I understand and appreciate the tradeoffs I made when I bought a powerbook.
However, the point stands: People who want my money, will develop for the Mac. If they don't develop for the Mac, they won't get my money.
"God given right"? Come on, now. Let's get a little perspective. Everybody is making free economic choices, and that's good. Frankly, I don't think that Mythic has done their homework if they're dismissing the Mac platform out of hand, but it's their game and they can do whatever they want.
How many PCs do you suppose are in offices and never have a single game installed? I'd venture to guess that 40% is a conservative estimate.
I don't think the numbers are as far against Macintoshes as some people think. Clearly, Blizzard disagrees with you. I would very much enjoy seeing their numbers, but they don't seem interested in sharing them. Heck, encouraging more Mac game development probably isn't in their best interest...
"(though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe)"
Really? I need you to elucidate that for me. Please explain how Microsoft's overtures are substantially different from "Sure is a nice business you have there. Sure would be a shame if something were to...happen to it. Like, you know, a lawsuit. Funded by Microsoft."
How is that ANY different from a protection racket?
It might not have value for you, and that's fine. If you think you're the final authority, you're welcome to your delusions.
I do not care what you believe. I welcome you to do as you wish. I'll need you to explain to me how that makes me a bigot.
"Now if you could show me a religion that wasn't faith-based, you'd have something."
Um, yeah. That's like having a lemonade that's not water-based. Of COURSE religion is faith-based...otherwise, it would not be a religion.
You don't choose to make the leap of faith. That's fine. It just seems rather, I don't know, small of you to assume that people who don't agree with you are stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
"And is Franklin Roosevelt reviled today because of it?"
I detest his legacy of cowardice and manipulation. Of course, I only have one vote, so nobody has to care.
"Given the rest of the board is reasonable"
BAHAHAHA!
*wipes tear from eye*
*deep breath*
BAAAAAHHAHAHA!
Oh, that's a good one.
The failures in Vietnam and Iraq were not military failures...they were political. The politicians thought they were better warfighters than the warfighters, and they were wrong.
Frankly, I think that the Iraq debacle has ruined the opportunity for the US to be an actual liberator in places like Darfur and North Korea. Those regions are going to have to rely on the UN, which means they're boned.
The best part about vigilante action is that we get rid of that pesky "due process" and "habeas corpus" nonsense. Heck, if I decide you're guilty, you're not really due any process at all, are you?
Your ideas fascinate me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Believe me, something can be done. It just takes an administration with courage and resolve, instead of a vendetta.
There is no way for me to argue this with you. I'm done.
Yes, my .sig is true. Yes, I know more about aerodynamics than the average bear. Yes, the angle of attack is the angle that the air meets the airfoil section. No, reading a Wikipedia article does not make you well versed enough on this topic to refute my argument.
"You can't patent an idea ("hey, let's make a flying machine", or "hey, let's compress audio data") and prevent anyone else from doing the same."
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that that is demonstrably not true. The historical precedent I cite (Wright Bros. and Glenn Curtiss) is the specific example about which I know the most, but other examples from recent history are even more obvious (see RIM vs. NTP, RIM vs. Palm, Amazon's one-click, etc.)
You are talking about the way patent law might should wanna oughtta be. I am talking about historical realities.
*sigh*
No.
Ailerons change the camber of a section of wing, changing its coefficient of lift. That does not directly change the angle of attack of the wing. (I make the generous assumption that you a) know what angle of attack is, and b) are in fact talking about angle of attack when you say "angle the wing presents to the air")
You are arguing with somebody who has a much better theoretical, practical, and historical understanding of this topic than you do. You really ought to either a) stop arguing and start asking intelligent questions, or b) give up and argue with somebody more poorly informed.
"If Curtiss had found a way to implement roll control that didn't involve changing the angle of the wing"
He did.
"it wouldn't have been an issue."
It was.
You clearly have no understanding of how this actually played out. The Wright Brothers patent was held to cover any mechanism of controlling an aircraft about its longitudinal (roll) axis. You can't have an airplane without roll control. Glenn Curtiss used a completely different (and arguably superior) technique that you might have heard of: It's called an aileron. The Wrights twisted the entire wing structure to provide (poor) roll control. The mechanisms were completely different, but the Wright's patent still very nearly put Curtiss out of business, until the US Gov't nationalized the Wrights' patent in the run-up to World War I, since the Wright aircraft were no longer state of the art, and they weren't interested in developing more advanced models.
So, again, you're mistaken.
"conceptually, patents are for specific methods and not general concepts"
Concept != reality.
Um, no, I'm not. Go read about Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Brothers, and then we can have a discussion on the topic.
"really don't understand our liberties, nor do they really understand what the founding fathers were trying to create"
You give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they understand EXACTLY what they're doing, and they are explicitly trying to destroy the foundations of this country.
OK, but "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights".
I don't agree that the Founders were a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists, as the Right is trying to cast them now. But you're being obtuse if you argue that the Founders did not assert a Divine Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You're free to have issue with the Divine part, but the rest of it reads pretty well to me.
Let me state this baldly: Defending America's ideals is more important than defending America. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, no. But it is the founding charter for the authority of government, and is therefore the thing that makes America America.
So, yes. If the choice is "Shred the Constitution" or "Lose my home town" (which is a remarkably stupid and false dichotomy), then I would absolutely choose "Lose my home town".
You do realize that your foolproof master plan relies on getting eaten, right?
Well, golly. Thanks for clearing that up.
But, you see, that's not how patents actually work. These patent abusers ARE patenting the idea of "one click ordering", or "email over wireless", or "a pretty small keyboard you work with your thumbs", or (going old school) "longitudinal flight control of a powered aircraft". We're NOT talking about specific implementations. Any way of solving these problems has been deemed to be infringing on these various patents.
Really? How do you figure? Where does it say that in the statute?
The Army's free video game is a propaganda tool? What a shocking revelation. Quick, to the Batmobile!
Come on, don't put words in my mouth. I understand and appreciate the tradeoffs I made when I bought a powerbook.
However, the point stands: People who want my money, will develop for the Mac. If they don't develop for the Mac, they won't get my money.
"God given right"? Come on, now. Let's get a little perspective. Everybody is making free economic choices, and that's good. Frankly, I don't think that Mythic has done their homework if they're dismissing the Mac platform out of hand, but it's their game and they can do whatever they want.
How many PCs do you suppose are in offices and never have a single game installed? I'd venture to guess that 40% is a conservative estimate.
I don't think the numbers are as far against Macintoshes as some people think. Clearly, Blizzard disagrees with you. I would very much enjoy seeing their numbers, but they don't seem interested in sharing them. Heck, encouraging more Mac game development probably isn't in their best interest...
Now you're getting it.
"(though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe)"
Really? I need you to elucidate that for me. Please explain how Microsoft's overtures are substantially different from "Sure is a nice business you have there. Sure would be a shame if something were to...happen to it. Like, you know, a lawsuit. Funded by Microsoft."
How is that ANY different from a protection racket?
Come on, that's like kicking puppies that don't have any legs.
It might not have value for you, and that's fine. If you think you're the final authority, you're welcome to your delusions.
I do not care what you believe. I welcome you to do as you wish. I'll need you to explain to me how that makes me a bigot.
"Now if you could show me a religion that wasn't faith-based, you'd have something."
Um, yeah. That's like having a lemonade that's not water-based. Of COURSE religion is faith-based...otherwise, it would not be a religion.
You don't choose to make the leap of faith. That's fine. It just seems rather, I don't know, small of you to assume that people who don't agree with you are stupid.