There is a very ironic message in this whole idea.
NASA is hoping to drive costs down by having multiple corporations compete for a single prize! They believe that having more than one company try to build the same thing, of which there is only one winner (I mean how many hubbles are there), will actually reduce their costs!
I agree! Competition does reduce costs! Now, all we need is to multiple NASAs so that they can compete with each other, and reduce *their* costs.
Personally, I would rather run electrolysis in my house: plug the Hydrogen car into wall. Then I won't have to go to the gas station anymore.
The question is of course one of efficiency, how efficiently can a reactor turn water into hydrogen and how much does it cost to build and maintain the infrastructure to carry around hydrogen in a safe manner, vs. the cost of lossy transmission lines and then cost of hydrolysis.
The other advantage would be that if the goal is to produce electricity rather than hydrogen, the cost of electricity will go down too.
As one who hates going to the gas station, I'm all for hydrolysis at the home.
Oh yeah, and of course, Microsoft would never do that.
Maybe they would, though I don't think they have anywhere near the lobbying force of those companies.
But the basic point of my post is they obey the law. True, they played pretty hard and dirty with NetScape and Sun, but they met their legal obligations in the end by way of paying up when they lost the court battles.
What I don't see is how MicroSoft has been demoted below that of the common crook. And from a purely software company perspective, I maintain they have remained incredibly limber.
You haven't said if it is a small or large team. Since you are an assistant, I'll assume it is a large team.
Do: Make a small schedule and identify the milestones. "Socialize" the milestones. Find out if there are any objections to the milestone! Dig! Identify and remove objections: If someone is late or can't do something, find out why. Dig, cross reference. Remove the objection. If the objector objects too much, flag the person. Have no opinion on anything: you are pure communication. You don't know about software. You don't have to, but you must understand what you are building and how one thing depends on another, or you are worthless. Listen to the people at the very bottom of the trench that others build on, and at the fringes that manage other people's stuff.
Dont: let management make you responsible for the schedule. You are just a reporter. Let people slide. hold them accountable. Talk about "Teams". No one is here for your idea of social engineering.
Never: Take the "group" to play. You can't make people under the gun work together better by taking them to the park, or playing games, or anything like that. If you experience root problems, deal with them, and don't pretend that feel good things will make engineers feel good. It will make your mediocre engineers feel good and your good ones angry because there is too much work to do.
This has very little to do with converting pirates (which I'm sure even M$ realizes is a losing battle). The piracy sector M$ is genuinely worried about is people who get suckered into buying pirated copies from bootleggers or shady computer shops.
Does anyone else find this post disturbing? It starts off with the comment that the crooks operate with impunity (even M$ realizes they can't stop the pirates). This "M$" moniker stems from the idea that somehow Microsoft is this evil empire stealing from the very people that buy their software, and ends with the idea that uSoft is really only victimizing the victims (those who get suckered).
I think I understand this sentiment. Its a feeling that "Oh Geez, those guys at Microsoft have the market, and all that money, and all those advantages." I worked at a large software server company that was annihililated by Microsoft. But, they out marketed us, they out CEOd us, they out engineered us, and most importantly, they out executed us. I have every reason to hate these guys: my company was decimated, and it had a very personal effect on my life and future. But I don't even with their deep pockets, because they managed to execute whereas my company did not.
Say what you want, I do not believe that Microsoft is the evil empire. Leave that to ATT or the tobacco companies, which have leagues of lawyers manipulating the government. And if you still feel that way, consider that Microsoft has managed to evolve itself inspite of its huge size, for example adding a gui to DOS, adding IP to its system, or even adding ie as an intrinsic part of its OS.
Regardless of how you feel about microsoft, its ability to adapt and evolve given its size is remarkable and should be admired.
What's to stop them from changing the code on enough of the machines to win? We'd never know what happens after we inspect the code. In the right area they COULD possibly win with only a handful of doctored machines.
Who is they? Presumably the party that wins. What prevents it is that they would be kicked out of power for decades if it were ever caught.
Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
Well, let's talk about a GNU GPL equivalent for patent licensing. Something to the effect that if you use the patent in a work, then any patents in that work you have rights to you must also make available under the GPL.
Personally, I think Microsoft is using a tool in their bag of tricks. No FUD about it, they have patents that open source likely infringes upon, and that governments are obligated to protect. Further, open source is open, so Microsoft can jump in and find the violations if they desire. Patents are an excellent weapon for Microsoft since they can attack and attack and don't have to defend.
Also, I think Microsoft has the open source community over an idealogical barrell, since patents are anathema to many in the open source community.
Even if patents weren't anathema, the people performing the innovations don't necessarily have the resources (legal, financial, time) to go through a patent process anyay.
So Microsoft doesn't have to defend against open source patents, but can attack open source with them. Sounds pretty good.
I think in order to survive the onslaught, it will be necessary to garner support elsewhere.
But due to the $$$$ Microsoft have in reserves, anybody that legally owns (or doesn't infringe) CANNOT afford to mount a defence against the diatribe of ligation, and has to recede.
I think this is short sighted. If you consider the value of something, open source is pretty valuable to some. It performs a function, and institutions are using it instead of the equivalent microsoft code, or important product offerings on it.
These institutions are saving many millions of dollars, that's the extra value they are getting from open source. I would guess these instititions could be marshalled to defend against Microsoft.
Imagine there were such a thing as "open source patents." Of course there are innovations occuring in the open source community, so it shouldn't be difficult to find how to patent these things if a fund for such could be established. (I shudder to think of the licensing agreement of a viral GNU license). These patents could be used to stave off microsoft, or whoevers, attacks using the above institutions resources/patent fund.
Of course, this takes organization, effective politicing, etc.
Why it probably won't happen is that the implications of open source licensing are huge. First, if a GNU type license were used, you can use this patent provided that any patents you have in works that are patented are given to the public domain, is so eggregious it might stifle innovation in a large scale (or not, I guess this point is debatable).
It also has the very uncomfortable feeling of doing the very thing the open source community appears to be against, which is restriction of intellectual property.
Microsoft is willing to patent things, and to assume there are no patent infringments in the open source seems short sighted. And if they don't have the patents yet, eventually they will, as they push their technology forward. It isn't as if Microsoft consists of a bunch of incapable people, so eventually they will have, if they don't already, a lot of important patents open source will infringe upon.
When I was working at one large software company, we wrote a number of patents. One of the reason was that companies like IBM might sue you, and if you don't have patents you can exchange with them, the cost is higher during the settlement.
Honestly, it seems without "open source" patents, the open source community is fighting without an important tool, and like all wars of attrition with a determined foe, will eventually lose.
I'm confused. What is the advantage of paper? Everyone keeps saying "OH, it's necessary," but why?
If the voting machine spits out a piece of paper the voter gives to some random person, does that make the voting process any more secure? The paper doesn't identify them, but they could look at the piece of paper and know what they punched and somehow find voter fraud? Then, they can feel safe that this piece of paper won't change, and the random person will put the paper with no hanging chads in the ballot box and not stuff the ballot.
What if you gave the precinct worker a CDWORM? would that be the same? You could still give it to the random worker, and then you could even put your name on your ballot, but then you can't *see* what you gave the random worker. So what? At least your name is on it, and it makes it a little harder for the random poll worker to change it. Of course, you can't see the holes you punched, but after the paper comes out of the ballot it's pretty much greek anyway.
If you don't see much difference between the piece of paper and the CD, or think the CD is better, I think you will have a hard time finding a difference between *not* handing the CD to the random vote taker, and just putting your vote on a disk drive.
Somehow I suspect that the error in electronic voting will be far better than the manual processes. Geez, if you don't believe that, why are you reading slashdot! Or why are you a techie! Get a new profession.
Because there are times I want to, say, see a golf tournament, and the only way I can see it is on TV.
Looks like the law is coming by way of restricting the ease with which you can get around the commercials.
So it sounds like you really aren't pissed they are closing the commercial loophole on the TiVo as much as there isn't a big enough market to pay to get around watching them.
You seem to be of the opinion that, because I tap the airwaves, I _must_ watch their commercials.
That's a mischaracterization. I'm saying you are freeloading if you systematically and intentionally skip them.
Why are you pissed off if they make the Tivo so that it prevents you from freeloading? Seems there is nothing wrong since the advertisiment skipping feature only has value to skip the ad.
I have a TiVo now, and there is no way in HELL I will EVER watch another commercial again
So you are using TiVo to bypass the commercials, and then getting pissed off because the law might prevent you from doing that. I mean, would you use that feature for anything else? Your anger seems convenient. Just because there is no law that says you should not bypass the commercials, you must know that the way the corporations are able to provide the programming is that way, and are using their lack of ability to require it to freeload, and then getting pissed off when they try to stop it. Unless, of course, you can show me how preventing bypassing commercials stops some other functionality you want.
Are you pissed off that in England they have a tax on TVs? After all, it's just grabbing the stuff people transmit over the airways.
Are you pissed off by MacroVision too (in case you don't know, it prevents VCR to VCR recording due to theft issues).
No, again. I'd GLADLY pay for what I watch, and would pay in cash.
Don't you have the ability to purchase commercial free programming? Most in the US do. Do you not have blockbuster/netflicks/HBO, etc?
And who are these Senators representing, anyway? Planning to FORCE our hardware to play commercials? They sure as hell aren't representing ME. Bunch of streetwalkers, they are.
They just want to stop your free ride. The way stations pay for their programming is by transmitting brainwashing information by way of commercials during the programming.
***sigh*** I have a TiVo now, and there is no way in HELL I will EVER watch another commercial again
Geez, what has happened to Western Values? You accept as your god given right to consume what someone else produces, but then staunchly demand you shouldn't have to pay for it. It's not that you don't watch commercials, anyone can walk out on a commercial, it's your attitude that you shouldn't have to. Regardless the people that produce the stuff you want to watch will figure out a way to get you to pay for it.
Imagine advertisers embedding commercials in the programming. Only the richest of advertisers will be able to do it. They will demand prominance in the programming, which will make the program more jerky, or they will demand continuous queues, like everyone mirthfully drinking coke in every scene.
Also, your Heinlein quotation is not relevent. I'm sure Heinlein refers to instances in which the market for a product has changed/disappeared, as in farm subsidies, tobacco subsidies (to come), steel subsidies, tarriffs, etc. But not to companies competing in the free market where people have figured out a way to take without paying.
State Colin Powell's future plans. "The Washington Post" reports today that Powell recently reaffirmed his intention to serve in the Bush Cabinet for no more than one term.
Heh. I don't see at all why this fact would make his core argument "wrong."
He was arguing that it isn't fair that farmers can't protect the plant varieties they have made through breeding, but that corporations can protect genetically modified food. From this he draws the conclusion that the government is conspiring to allow corporations to suck from the poor farmer, with little if any evidence, so of course his core argument is wrong. I think you have who was claiming what backwards.
But please stop arguing like that is the only correct viewpoint out there.
I think it's just the best (that coupled with a monopoly busting govt.). Look, my Dad was at one time the #2 man of the FDA, so I do agree there is room for regulation, but the idea that people's property should be abducted by the government becuse the government thinks they can do a better job of distribution actually slows down innovation. Oh, and there are so many other wrong things with the government running things, not regulating them. But that's another topic.
But if genetic material can be considered Intellectual Property, what's the difference between a genetic sequence resulting from meticulous breeding and a genetic sequence resulting from genetic modification?
You can patent new varieties of plants you derive through breeding. Check out roses, for instance, so the core argument is wrong.
But even if new strains weren't protectable, I would argue you would want to be able to patent things so the people with a lot of money invest in making more of it, by making something so superior it makes sense for people to use it.
What obligates the government to protect your business model? The purpose of the government is to protect property, obviously.
Although, I suspect the alternatives don't involve the same profit margin, which is why we've ended up in this situation (and a lot of others) to begin with--corporate greed.
Get used to the idea that people do things out of self interest. The wonderful ideas of socialism just don't work: even the Israeli Kibbutz, in which people have a huge binding force, failed. Also, you argue yourself into a hole. The other ways aren't as efficient (i.e., not as profitable), and in so doing you point out the very reason capitalism works: greed (or the desire to make things and be rewarded for them is another way of looking at it without using the hyperloaded term "greed." Kids stealing music are greedy too, you know).
Moreover, forgive me if I'm wrong here,
Just shows you why analogy is such a dangerous tool. Look, I take carbon, chromium, nickel, and iron, and I get steel. Certainly something ought to be patentable. But I just took some existing stuff and put it together in a different way.
Anyway, if the thrust of your thinking is "Gee, why can't we just all get along and share," well I agree with the sentiment, but it just aint the way people work, and I for one am glad we have a government that can prevent people from stealing my stuff and allow people to fight it out in the virtual capitalist world instead.
So therefore everyone should be able to steal the GM modifications?
I don't believe these businesses believe the infection model will stand the test of the courts. Now, I realize there is almost no way to convince you of this. But it's not the purpose of patents, and it's not the purpose of the GM plants either. The plants provide a value greater than the existing ones, and the GM manufacturers want to share in that value with their customers.
Now I don't think the GM seed manufactorers are any more moral than anyone else, so if they could get away with forcing everyone to use their seed, they would, but it won't pass the courts except for a brief period.
Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. The manufactorers are in a difficult position. It's easy for a farmer who has never paid their share of the cost to steal the value for free, destroying the entire business model of GM plants. If you don't feel this is a serious concern, just look at how willing people are to steal software, music, videos, whatever. The GM manufactorers are well aware of this and trying to stop it, and obviously they will try to push the line in their favor. The line is hard to draw, and it will take the courts some time to figure it out, and yes some people in the meantime will become casualties, but let's not use this anecdotal information to draw sweeping conclusions about a technology with such enormous as yet unrealized benefits. Those who place a high value on social benefit over individual benefit should be willing to accept this.
I also believe this is a short lived phenomenon. Eventually seeds will be made sterile or something, so this problem goes away, or perhaps the courts will invent a good way of dealing with the problem.
Now, what bothers me about your position is that it is basically, "Well, since there isn't a perfectly fair model right now, you have to give it away free. Or only charge those willing to pay." So many people like you self righteously argue for giving away other people's hard work because it is easy to copy it, yet the true value is not in the copying, but in the original work itself.
I don't think you would argue the farmers should give their food away for free, because it is tangible, but that you should give away the less tangible intellectual property. Honestly, it sounds backwards. The hard things that are progressive are the things that should be rewarded.
Most of the advancement that these GM seeds rely on was as a result of thousands of years of selective practices by generations of farmers
That and spending millions in research. So, be thankful the patent lasts only 20 years or so, then lots of people will be able to manufacture the seeds.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very ironic message in this whole idea.
NASA is hoping to drive costs down by having multiple corporations compete for a single prize! They believe that having more than one company try to build the same thing, of which there is only one winner (I mean how many hubbles are there), will actually reduce their costs!
I agree! Competition does reduce costs! Now, all we need is to multiple NASAs so that they can compete with each other, and reduce *their* costs.
> So what happens when you want to drive across the country?
I think if I wanted to do something as deliberate as driving across country, I could schedule "refills," such as at motels, places of eating, etc.
Think of how easy it would be to set up an "electric" pump station.
Personally, I would rather run electrolysis in my house: plug the Hydrogen car into wall. Then I won't have to go to the gas station anymore.
The question is of course one of efficiency, how efficiently can a reactor turn water into hydrogen and how much does it cost to build and maintain the infrastructure to carry around hydrogen in a safe manner, vs. the cost of lossy transmission lines and then cost of hydrolysis.
The other advantage would be that if the goal is to produce electricity rather than hydrogen, the cost of electricity will go down too.
As one who hates going to the gas station, I'm all for hydrolysis at the home.
Oh yeah, and of course, Microsoft would never do that.
Maybe they would, though I don't think they have anywhere near the lobbying force of those companies.
But the basic point of my post is they obey the law. True, they played pretty hard and dirty with NetScape and Sun, but they met their legal obligations in the end by way of paying up when they lost the court battles.
What I don't see is how MicroSoft has been demoted below that of the common crook. And from a purely software company perspective, I maintain they have remained incredibly limber.
You haven't said if it is a small or large team. Since you are an assistant, I'll assume it is a large team.
Do:
Make a small schedule and identify the milestones.
"Socialize" the milestones.
Find out if there are any objections to the milestone! Dig!
Identify and remove objections: If someone is late or can't do something, find out why. Dig, cross reference. Remove the objection. If the objector objects too much, flag the person.
Have no opinion on anything: you are pure communication.
You don't know about software. You don't have to, but you must understand what you are building and how one thing depends on another, or you are worthless.
Listen to the people at the very bottom of the trench that others build on, and at the fringes that manage other people's stuff.
Dont:
let management make you responsible for the schedule. You are just a reporter.
Let people slide. hold them accountable.
Talk about "Teams". No one is here for your idea of social engineering.
Never:
Take the "group" to play. You can't make people under the gun work together better by taking them to the park, or playing games, or anything like that. If you experience root problems, deal with them, and don't pretend that feel good things will make engineers feel good. It will make your mediocre engineers feel good and your good ones angry because there is too much work to do.
This has very little to do with converting pirates (which I'm sure even M$ realizes is a losing battle). The piracy sector M$ is genuinely worried about is people who get suckered into buying pirated copies from bootleggers or shady computer shops.
Does anyone else find this post disturbing? It starts off with the comment that the crooks operate with impunity (even M$ realizes they can't stop the pirates). This "M$" moniker stems from the idea that somehow Microsoft is this evil empire stealing from the very people that buy their software, and ends with the idea that uSoft is really only victimizing the victims (those who get suckered).
I think I understand this sentiment. Its a feeling that "Oh Geez, those guys at Microsoft have the market, and all that money, and all those advantages." I worked at a large software server company that was annihililated by Microsoft. But, they out marketed us, they out CEOd us, they out engineered us, and most importantly, they out executed us. I have every reason to hate these guys: my company was decimated, and it had a very personal effect on my life and future. But I don't even with their deep pockets, because they managed to execute whereas my company did not.
Say what you want, I do not believe that Microsoft is the evil empire. Leave that to ATT or the tobacco companies, which have leagues of lawyers manipulating the government. And if you still feel that way, consider that Microsoft has managed to evolve itself inspite of its huge size, for example adding a gui to DOS, adding IP to its system, or even adding ie as an intrinsic part of its OS.
Regardless of how you feel about microsoft, its ability to adapt and evolve given its size is remarkable and should be admired.
What's to stop them from changing the code on enough of the machines to win? We'd never know what happens after we inspect the code. In the right area they COULD possibly win with only a handful of doctored machines.
Who is they? Presumably the party that wins. What prevents it is that they would be kicked out of power for decades if it were ever caught.
The storm is gathering. It has a lot of force. Pretend, if you want, that just because it hasn't started yet that it won't. Too much is at stake.
Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
Well, let's talk about a GNU GPL equivalent for patent licensing. Something to the effect that if you use the patent in a work, then any patents in that work you have rights to you must also make available under the GPL.
That is what FUD is... scaring.
Personally, I think Microsoft is using a tool in their bag of tricks. No FUD about it, they have patents that open source likely infringes upon, and that governments are obligated to protect. Further, open source is open, so Microsoft can jump in and find the violations if they desire. Patents are an excellent weapon for Microsoft since they can attack and attack and don't have to defend.
Also, I think Microsoft has the open source community over an idealogical barrell, since patents are anathema to many in the open source community.
Even if patents weren't anathema, the people performing the innovations don't necessarily have the resources (legal, financial, time) to go through a patent process anyay.
So Microsoft doesn't have to defend against open source patents, but can attack open source with them. Sounds pretty good.
I think in order to survive the onslaught, it will be necessary to garner support elsewhere.
But due to the $$$$ Microsoft have in reserves, anybody that legally owns (or doesn't infringe) CANNOT afford to mount a defence against the diatribe of ligation, and has to recede.
I think this is short sighted. If you consider the value of something, open source is pretty valuable to some. It performs a function, and institutions are using it instead of the equivalent microsoft code, or important product offerings on it.
These institutions are saving many millions of dollars, that's the extra value they are getting from open source. I would guess these instititions could be marshalled to defend against Microsoft.
Imagine there were such a thing as "open source patents." Of course there are innovations occuring in the open source community, so it shouldn't be difficult to find how to patent these things if a fund for such could be established. (I shudder to think of the licensing agreement of a viral GNU license). These patents could be used to stave off microsoft, or whoevers, attacks using the above institutions resources/patent fund.
Of course, this takes organization, effective politicing, etc.
Why it probably won't happen is that the implications of open source licensing are huge. First, if a GNU type license were used, you can use this patent provided that any patents you have in works that are patented are given to the public domain, is so eggregious it might stifle innovation in a large scale (or not, I guess this point is debatable).
It also has the very uncomfortable feeling of doing the very thing the open source community appears to be against, which is restriction of intellectual property.
Microsoft is willing to patent things, and to assume there are no patent infringments in the open source seems short sighted. And if they don't have the patents yet, eventually they will, as they push their technology forward. It isn't as if Microsoft consists of a bunch of incapable people, so eventually they will have, if they don't already, a lot of important patents open source will infringe upon.
When I was working at one large software company, we wrote a number of patents. One of the reason was that companies like IBM might sue you, and if you don't have patents you can exchange with them, the cost is higher during the settlement.
Honestly, it seems without "open source" patents, the open source community is fighting without an important tool, and like all wars of attrition with a determined foe, will eventually lose.
I don't know about you, but when I voted i signed in and they took my name as having voted. There's your audit trail.
I'm confused. What is the advantage of paper? Everyone keeps saying "OH, it's necessary," but why?
If the voting machine spits out a piece of paper the voter gives to some random person, does that make the voting process any more secure? The paper doesn't identify them, but they could look at the piece of paper and know what they punched and somehow find voter fraud? Then, they can feel safe that this piece of paper won't change, and the random person will put the paper with no hanging chads in the ballot box and not stuff the ballot.
What if you gave the precinct worker a CDWORM? would that be the same? You could still give it to the random worker, and then you could even put your name on your ballot, but then you can't *see* what you gave the random worker. So what? At least your name is on it, and it makes it a little harder for the random poll worker to change it. Of course, you can't see the holes you punched, but after the paper comes out of the ballot it's pretty much greek anyway.
If you don't see much difference between the piece of paper and the CD, or think the CD is better, I think you will have a hard time finding a difference between *not* handing the CD to the random vote taker, and just putting your vote on a disk drive.
Somehow I suspect that the error in electronic voting will be far better than the manual processes. Geez, if you don't believe that, why are you reading slashdot! Or why are you a techie! Get a new profession.
Because there are times I want to, say, see a golf tournament, and the only way I can see it is on TV.
Looks like the law is coming by way of restricting the ease with which you can get around the commercials.
So it sounds like you really aren't pissed they are closing the commercial loophole on the TiVo as much as there isn't a big enough market to pay to get around watching them.
Let's see.
I paid for all the food, but I stole the soda. That means I'm not a thief.
If TV wants to go to a paid mode, I'll support it.
TV does have a paid mode. It is called HBO. If you can't get it over cable, get it over satellite.
So I ask again, why are you pissed off they want to remove the capability of freeloading from your Tivo?
You seem to be of the opinion that, because I tap the airwaves, I _must_ watch their commercials.
That's a mischaracterization. I'm saying you are freeloading if you systematically and intentionally skip them.
Why are you pissed off if they make the Tivo so that it prevents you from freeloading? Seems there is nothing wrong since the advertisiment skipping feature only has value to skip the ad.
I have a TiVo now, and there is no way in HELL I will EVER watch another commercial again
So you are using TiVo to bypass the commercials, and then getting pissed off because the law might prevent you from doing that. I mean, would you use that feature for anything else? Your anger seems convenient. Just because there is no law that says you should not bypass the commercials, you must know that the way the corporations are able to provide the programming is that way, and are using their lack of ability to require it to freeload, and then getting pissed off when they try to stop it. Unless, of course, you can show me how preventing bypassing commercials stops some other functionality you want.
Are you pissed off that in England they have a tax on TVs? After all, it's just grabbing the stuff people transmit over the airways.
Are you pissed off by MacroVision too (in case you don't know, it prevents VCR to VCR recording due to theft issues).
No, again. I'd GLADLY pay for what I watch, and would pay in cash.
Don't you have the ability to purchase commercial free programming? Most in the US do. Do you not have blockbuster/netflicks/HBO, etc?
And who are these Senators representing, anyway? Planning to FORCE our hardware to play commercials? They sure as hell aren't representing ME. Bunch of streetwalkers, they are.
They just want to stop your free ride. The way stations pay for their programming is by transmitting brainwashing information by way of commercials during the programming.
***sigh*** I have a TiVo now, and there is no way in HELL I will EVER watch another commercial again
Geez, what has happened to Western Values? You accept as your god given right to consume what someone else produces, but then staunchly demand you shouldn't have to pay for it. It's not that you don't watch commercials, anyone can walk out on a commercial, it's your attitude that you shouldn't have to. Regardless the people that produce the stuff you want to watch will figure out a way to get you to pay for it.
Imagine advertisers embedding commercials in the programming. Only the richest of advertisers will be able to do it. They will demand prominance in the programming, which will make the program more jerky, or they will demand continuous queues, like everyone mirthfully drinking coke in every scene.
Also, your Heinlein quotation is not relevent. I'm sure Heinlein refers to instances in which the market for a product has changed/disappeared, as in farm subsidies, tobacco subsidies (to come), steel subsidies, tarriffs, etc. But not to companies competing in the free market where people have figured out a way to take without paying.
State Colin Powell's future plans. "The Washington Post" reports today that Powell recently reaffirmed his intention to serve in the Bush Cabinet for no more than one term.
Aug 23, 2003
Heh. I don't see at all why this fact would make his core argument "wrong."
He was arguing that it isn't fair that farmers can't protect the plant varieties they have made through breeding, but that corporations can protect genetically modified food. From this he draws the conclusion that the government is conspiring to allow corporations to suck from the poor farmer, with little if any evidence, so of course his core argument is wrong. I think you have who was claiming what backwards.
But please stop arguing like that is the only correct viewpoint out there.
I think it's just the best (that coupled with a monopoly busting govt.). Look, my Dad was at one time the #2 man of the FDA, so I do agree there is room for regulation, but the idea that people's property should be abducted by the government becuse the government thinks they can do a better job of distribution actually slows down innovation. Oh, and there are so many other wrong things with the government running things, not regulating them. But that's another topic.
But if genetic material can be considered Intellectual Property, what's the difference between a genetic sequence resulting from meticulous breeding and a genetic sequence resulting from genetic modification?
You can patent new varieties of plants you derive through breeding. Check out roses, for instance, so the core argument is wrong.
But even if new strains weren't protectable, I would argue you would want to be able to patent things so the people with a lot of money invest in making more of it, by making something so superior it makes sense for people to use it.
What obligates the government to protect your business model?
The purpose of the government is to protect property, obviously.
Although, I suspect the alternatives don't involve the same profit margin, which is why we've ended up in this situation (and a lot of others) to begin with--corporate greed.
Get used to the idea that people do things out of self interest. The wonderful ideas of socialism just don't work: even the Israeli Kibbutz, in which people have a huge binding force, failed. Also, you argue yourself into a hole. The other ways aren't as efficient (i.e., not as profitable), and in so doing you point out the very reason capitalism works: greed (or the desire to make things and be rewarded for them is another way of looking at it without using the hyperloaded term "greed." Kids stealing music are greedy too, you know).
Moreover, forgive me if I'm wrong here,
Just shows you why analogy is such a dangerous tool. Look, I take carbon, chromium, nickel, and iron, and I get steel. Certainly something ought to be patentable. But I just took some existing stuff and put it together in a different way.
Anyway, if the thrust of your thinking is "Gee, why can't we just all get along and share," well I agree with the sentiment, but it just aint the way people work, and I for one am glad we have a government that can prevent people from stealing my stuff and allow people to fight it out in the virtual capitalist world instead.
So therefore everyone should be able to steal the GM modifications?
I don't believe these businesses believe the infection model will stand the test of the courts. Now, I realize there is almost no way to convince you of this. But it's not the purpose of patents, and it's not the purpose of the GM plants either. The plants provide a value greater than the existing ones, and the GM manufacturers want to share in that value with their customers.
Now I don't think the GM seed manufactorers are any more moral than anyone else, so if they could get away with forcing everyone to use their seed, they would, but it won't pass the courts except for a brief period.
Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. The manufactorers are in a difficult position. It's easy for a farmer who has never paid their share of the cost to steal the value for free, destroying the entire business model of GM plants. If you don't feel this is a serious concern, just look at how willing people are to steal software, music, videos, whatever. The GM manufactorers are well aware of this and trying to stop it, and obviously they will try to push the line in their favor. The line is hard to draw, and it will take the courts some time to figure it out, and yes some people in the meantime will become casualties, but let's not use this anecdotal information to draw sweeping conclusions about a technology with such enormous as yet unrealized benefits. Those who place a high value on social benefit over individual benefit should be willing to accept this.
I also believe this is a short lived phenomenon. Eventually seeds will be made sterile or something, so this problem goes away, or perhaps the courts will invent a good way of dealing with the problem.
Now, what bothers me about your position is that it is basically, "Well, since there isn't a perfectly fair model right now, you have to give it away free. Or only charge those willing to pay." So many people like you self righteously argue for giving away other people's hard work because it is easy to copy it, yet the true value is not in the copying, but in the original work itself.
I don't think you would argue the farmers should give their food away for free, because it is tangible, but that you should give away the less tangible intellectual property. Honestly, it sounds backwards. The hard things that are progressive are the things that should be rewarded.
Most of the advancement that these GM seeds rely on was as a result of thousands of years of selective practices by generations of farmers
That and spending millions in research. So, be thankful the patent lasts only 20 years or so, then lots of people will be able to manufacture the seeds.
Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives.
You are joking, aren't you? I mean, have you read it? It's worse than an 802.11 standard. It is full of stuff like this:
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
I can't even submit the quotation I wanted to because it violates Slashdot's text processor says "there is too much whitespace."
Forget it. You have to be a scholar to understand it.