1) we can move to a publicly funded research model (which would have the added advantage of preferring cures to maintenance drugs) and/or 2) we can allow copyright protections on drugs, which would mean that any rip-off cure would have to be significantly chemically different.
Patents do nothing but stifle innovation. Time to get rid of patents and put everything squarely into copyright. Let independent invention work to the benefit of everyone.
Unfortunately, that would require at least an aleph-0 of patents. And given how slow and overwhelmed the patent office is, no doubt an aleph-3 to process them all.
It's a headset actually, works with games that use a mic. Unless you want to buy a wireless headset (heavy), you're going to face the same problems to use these in any console game that uses voice.
Please feel free to read all my comments, all the way back to the top of the thread. I never said that the army would enforce the subpoena, nor did I say in my parallel that the bully gang would take your lunch money. In fact, I was clearly specific that they would not:
He has 10 bully friends who will come beat you up if you fight him over the dollar. Does it matter to you that they are there because you fought him rather than there over the dollar?
And my original claim: Demand ultimately backed by the force of the US Army.
I did not say the army would enforce a subpoena, I said their force backed it. I felt this clearly implied they were part of the potential threat of physical harm behind the subpoena, but in any case I think my subsequent comments made that very clear.
There's no Scenario 1, where you refuse and you don't get a beating from somebody. In fact, if there were a way out keeping your lunch money and not taking a beating, it would undermine my whole argument. My whole point is that there is no such escape.
There's no need for the random bullies in Scenario 3, the parallel is actually better without you beating up random bullies uninvolved in the matter.
And indeed, the gang may leave you with your lunch money, that's a perfectly valid parallel. The point is that you are indeed beaten senseless, not that you eventually have to give up your money. That's the core of my whole argument.
Whether or not the army trying to kill you is there about the subpoena or not is hardly going to matter to you, though, is it?
It's like if a bully demands your lunch dollar. He has 10 bully friends who will come beat you up if you fight him over the dollar. Does it matter to you that they are there because you fought him rather than there over the dollar? No, you're getting the beating either way. The motivation behind their attendance is irrelevant, they are part of the threat of force behind that bully's demand for your dollar. You can't get away with your dollar without facing them.
That's the same argument the other guy is making. Force is force. If you're in the situation of having a subpoena you don't want to comply with, and you decide, I'm going to resist this with force, who do you have to ultimately beat when you start down that road? Will defeating the police and fbi be sufficient? I say no.
Obviously, the subpoena becomes largely irrelevant as soon as you start down that path.
Think of it this way:
The subpoena says: do this, or your life will suck, and we have the force to make it suck. If you decide to face that force, and you overcome the police/fbi, the army will get involved. Call it putting down your revolution if you want, but the point is that it is part of the threat behind a subpoena, and I guarantee you will not violate a subpoena with use of force without facing that force (obviously, it is relatively unlikely anyone is going to get anywhere near that far: who has the capacity to beat the police and fbi... but that's where it would end). The army has a lot of capability to make your life suck, and they'll use it if it comes to that.
Hey, I just started with the claim that the power of subpoena is ultimately backed by the army. Someone else had to come in and claim that I was wrong/trolling. The point was that google has no choice but to comply, due to the massive force behind the subpoena. What massive force that is barely matters to the argument, but someone had to claim I was wrong anyway. When someone gets in my face about a technicality that's an aside to the core issue, and they're wrong, I call them on it.
The connection is immediate and obvious to me. A subpoena is an instrument of force, it says: do this, or your life will suck because we have the force to make it suck. If you decide to resist the subpoena matching force with force, how much force are you going to need? How a bully organizes his force, or at what point he decides that the subpoena will no longer be honored in his courts matters not at all to the issue. The bottom line is that you are being threatened, and the threat is of a certain size.
You're still not understanding. The compliance with the subpoena becomes relatively pointless as soon as force has to actually be applied, because at that point you're going to jail (or death) regardless of whether the subpoena is eventually successful or not, because you used force to resist the subpoena. The question is, what do you have to be prepared to deal with, force wise, not to comply with a subpoena. You seem to be claiming that all you have to do is hire up a huge military force, and kill the fbi and local police forces, and then everything will be a happy life for you, no more worries. I claim that even if you do this, you'll still be screwed.
All true. But my point remains, the ultimate force guaranteeing you will comply with a subpoena is the US army. Yes, it may mean that you get killed or thrown in GITMO for non compliance, and indeed, there are probably few groups on US Soil with the capacity to resist the FBI or the local police, but the ultimate force adding leverage to the subpoena is the army.
You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that the Army will back up the local police and fbi in the event they are wiped out. Not one officer killed, all of them. I guarantee a state of emergency would be declared in such a situation, and that the army will be sent in. So even if you have the force to defeat the local police and the fbi over a subpoena, you're still in for it.
They're not exactly handing over information on request. They're handing it over upon demand. Demand ultimately backed by the force of the US Army.
That aside, if you have information you need to keep private from the government, you should never let it travel over the public infrastructure. It could be cached and stored at any point along the way, and GMail is just a particularly obvious target point for the government to slurp that information.
But it wouldn't be nearly as good, unless you consider 8x slower nearly as good. In fact, given the prices... the performance you get compared to the 6800 is nearly linear with the price increase.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2717 &p=7 (note that the 7900 sli is consistently more than 4x as fast as the 6800 sli, and that we're considering how it would compare to just one 6800 in the pricing above).
I support a limit of about $5,000 for pain and suffering. Again, why should this be a lottery? It shouldn't be a lottery. People with the same losses ought to get the same compensation. Compensation for theft is well established in our justice system. If I steal your couch, and I'm caught, you can sue me for the value of the couch. If I take away your ability to walk, you can sue me for the value of your ability to walk. I would find it reasonable to establish a fixed value that everyone gets for these things, so that it wouldn't be a 'lottery', but again: you're going to come let me sever your spine for $5000? I actually have $5000 dollars I could spare, it might be interesting.
Other legal actions don't consider future worth; why should this?
That's just fundamentally not true. Plenty of legal actions factor in potential future worth. Including the example of your house burning down in which case you do get an inflation adjusted payout to rebuild the house (note that the loss of the house does not destroy the potential for you to sell the property).
The problem is the extent of ruination that is possible with medical malpractice. Why should my losses be tied to my income at all if we're talking about pain and suffering? And even worse, the problem with actual damages tied to earnings is that they don't consider future earnings possibilities well at all. Sure, I'm only making $150k/year this year, but I work on a lot of inventions. If one of those inventions would have paid off in the millions, and now I don't get that money, how do I prove my loss? So it certainly seems like you need some substantial multiplier on your provable losses. 20x doesn't seem unreasonable to me for padding.
Another way to think about it would be to consider: how much money would I have to offer you to let me sever your spine so that you could never walk again? Would you do it for $20 million? I wouldn't. I hope you wouldn't either.
Well my post was mostly supposed to be a joke (comparing NASDAQ to NYSE) but since I think your response is actually interesting:
Acting on non-public knowledge is illegal insider trading, but acting on public knowledge that no one else bothers to know is not. That's why Warren Buffet is a very rich man, and not in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially if you're one of those people who goes by one name like Cher or Plug.
That's not necessary in a couple of ways:
1) we can move to a publicly funded research model (which would have the added advantage of preferring cures to maintenance drugs)
and/or
2) we can allow copyright protections on drugs, which would mean that any rip-off cure would have to be significantly chemically different.
Patents do nothing but stifle innovation. Time to get rid of patents and put everything squarely into copyright. Let independent invention work to the benefit of everyone.
Unfortunately, that would require at least an aleph-0 of patents. And given how slow and overwhelmed the patent office is, no doubt an aleph-3 to process them all.
It's a headset actually, works with games that use a mic. Unless you want to buy a wireless headset (heavy), you're going to face the same problems to use these in any console game that uses voice.
The box doesn't even come in as a pro? This guy has no children.
Please feel free to read all my comments, all the way back to the top of the thread. I never said that the army would enforce the subpoena, nor did I say in my parallel that the bully gang would take your lunch money. In fact, I was clearly specific that they would not:
He has 10 bully friends who will come beat you up if you fight him over the dollar. Does it matter to you that they are there because you fought him rather than there over the dollar?
And my original claim:
Demand ultimately backed by the force of the US Army.
I did not say the army would enforce a subpoena, I said their force backed it. I felt this clearly implied they were part of the potential threat of physical harm behind the subpoena, but in any case I think my subsequent comments made that very clear.
Well, it's off in a couple of places.
There's no Scenario 1, where you refuse and you don't get a beating from somebody. In fact, if there were a way out keeping your lunch money and not taking a beating, it would undermine my whole argument. My whole point is that there is no such escape.
There's no need for the random bullies in Scenario 3, the parallel is actually better without you beating up random bullies uninvolved in the matter.
And indeed, the gang may leave you with your lunch money, that's a perfectly valid parallel. The point is that you are indeed beaten senseless, not that you eventually have to give up your money. That's the core of my whole argument.
Whether or not the army trying to kill you is there about the subpoena or not is hardly going to matter to you, though, is it?
It's like if a bully demands your lunch dollar. He has 10 bully friends who will come beat you up if you fight him over the dollar. Does it matter to you that they are there because you fought him rather than there over the dollar? No, you're getting the beating either way. The motivation behind their attendance is irrelevant, they are part of the threat of force behind that bully's demand for your dollar. You can't get away with your dollar without facing them.
That's the same argument the other guy is making. Force is force. If you're in the situation of having a subpoena you don't want to comply with, and you decide, I'm going to resist this with force, who do you have to ultimately beat when you start down that road? Will defeating the police and fbi be sufficient? I say no.
... but that's where it would end). The army has a lot of capability to make your life suck, and they'll use it if it comes to that.
Obviously, the subpoena becomes largely irrelevant as soon as you start down that path.
Think of it this way:
The subpoena says: do this, or your life will suck, and we have the force to make it suck. If you decide to face that force, and you overcome the police/fbi, the army will get involved. Call it putting down your revolution if you want, but the point is that it is part of the threat behind a subpoena, and I guarantee you will not violate a subpoena with use of force without facing that force (obviously, it is relatively unlikely anyone is going to get anywhere near that far: who has the capacity to beat the police and fbi
Hey, I just started with the claim that the power of subpoena is ultimately backed by the army. Someone else had to come in and claim that I was wrong/trolling. The point was that google has no choice but to comply, due to the massive force behind the subpoena. What massive force that is barely matters to the argument, but someone had to claim I was wrong anyway. When someone gets in my face about a technicality that's an aside to the core issue, and they're wrong, I call them on it.
The connection is immediate and obvious to me. A subpoena is an instrument of force, it says: do this, or your life will suck because we have the force to make it suck. If you decide to resist the subpoena matching force with force, how much force are you going to need? How a bully organizes his force, or at what point he decides that the subpoena will no longer be honored in his courts matters not at all to the issue. The bottom line is that you are being threatened, and the threat is of a certain size.
You're still not understanding. The compliance with the subpoena becomes relatively pointless as soon as force has to actually be applied, because at that point you're going to jail (or death) regardless of whether the subpoena is eventually successful or not, because you used force to resist the subpoena. The question is, what do you have to be prepared to deal with, force wise, not to comply with a subpoena. You seem to be claiming that all you have to do is hire up a huge military force, and kill the fbi and local police forces, and then everything will be a happy life for you, no more worries. I claim that even if you do this, you'll still be screwed.
"I refuse to divulge my PGP private key & passphrase."
of course, followed by:
"And stop torturing me in this secret eastern european prison, #@##$$%!"
All true. But my point remains, the ultimate force guaranteeing you will comply with a subpoena is the US army. Yes, it may mean that you get killed or thrown in GITMO for non compliance, and indeed, there are probably few groups on US Soil with the capacity to resist the FBI or the local police, but the ultimate force adding leverage to the subpoena is the army.
You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that the Army will back up the local police and fbi in the event they are wiped out. Not one officer killed, all of them. I guarantee a state of emergency would be declared in such a situation, and that the army will be sent in. So even if you have the force to defeat the local police and the fbi over a subpoena, you're still in for it.
No, if you kill the fbi and local police force, I guarantee they'll send in the army.
The USPS will keep scanned backups of your correspondence in perpetuity as well, so that doesn't work either.
They're not exactly handing over information on request. They're handing it over upon demand. Demand ultimately backed by the force of the US Army.
That aside, if you have information you need to keep private from the government, you should never let it travel over the public infrastructure. It could be cached and stored at any point along the way, and GMail is just a particularly obvious target point for the government to slurp that information.
Classic, that post is funny on so many levels.
What if you don't need another car, and like to play games?
c e+6800&pid=2223881873561302977&oid=299528262137621 7068&btnG=Search+Froogle&scoring=mrd
... the performance you get compared to the 6800 is nearly linear with the price increase.
7 &p=7
And that would be more like 1/10th (or less) the price for a previous generation card (here's a froogle for a 6800 at $170, compared to roughly $1000 for a 7900 SLI).
http://froogle.google.com/froogle_cluster?q=gefor
But it wouldn't be nearly as good, unless you consider 8x slower nearly as good. In fact, given the prices
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=271
(note that the 7900 sli is consistently more than 4x as fast as the 6800 sli, and that we're considering how it would compare to just one 6800 in the pricing above).
I support a limit of about $5,000 for pain and suffering. Again, why should this be a lottery?
It shouldn't be a lottery. People with the same losses ought to get the same compensation. Compensation for theft is well established in our justice system. If I steal your couch, and I'm caught, you can sue me for the value of the couch. If I take away your ability to walk, you can sue me for the value of your ability to walk. I would find it reasonable to establish a fixed value that everyone gets for these things, so that it wouldn't be a 'lottery', but again: you're going to come let me sever your spine for $5000? I actually have $5000 dollars I could spare, it might be interesting.
Other legal actions don't consider future worth; why should this?
That's just fundamentally not true. Plenty of legal actions factor in potential future worth. Including the example of your house burning down in which case you do get an inflation adjusted payout to rebuild the house (note that the loss of the house does not destroy the potential for you to sell the property).
The problem is the extent of ruination that is possible with medical malpractice. Why should my losses be tied to my income at all if we're talking about pain and suffering? And even worse, the problem with actual damages tied to earnings is that they don't consider future earnings possibilities well at all. Sure, I'm only making $150k/year this year, but I work on a lot of inventions. If one of those inventions would have paid off in the millions, and now I don't get that money, how do I prove my loss? So it certainly seems like you need some substantial multiplier on your provable losses. 20x doesn't seem unreasonable to me for padding.
Another way to think about it would be to consider: how much money would I have to offer you to let me sever your spine so that you could never walk again? Would you do it for $20 million? I wouldn't. I hope you wouldn't either.
This is slashdot, no one here has the next big thing in their pants.
Well my post was mostly supposed to be a joke (comparing NASDAQ to NYSE) but since I think your response is actually interesting:
Acting on non-public knowledge is illegal insider trading, but acting on public knowledge that no one else bothers to know is not. That's why Warren Buffet is a very rich man, and not in jail.