Well in the US most neighborhoods don't have a HOA anyways. They are a select few, and they setup mostly to keep the values of their homes, and insure a comfortable living environment. . ..
I disagree with the assertion (made by several posters, not just the above post) that HOAs are somehow unusual. It varies by locale, but in general any subdivision* created in the last 30 years has a HOA. The HOA is how the builder ensures that he can sell all the lots over the 10 year period he is building there, because the early owners aren't allowed to do anything that the builder thinks would detract from sales. Unfortunately, the HOA continues to exist after the builder is done and gone.
*Note that by "subdivision" I am referring to the case where a builder buys somebody's farm, and sells lots with homes built by that builder. Not the case where the farm owner subdivides his land and sells lots to private parties who then find their own builder to construct the home.
Yes, I live in a subdivision with an HOA. Although I've not had any problems with the HOA, I dislike it on principal. In particular the fact that every rule ends with "or other rules as may be given by the HOA board." As a result the current idiots on the board can essentially just make up any new rules that they want, without a general vote. And this covers everything from parking to what flowers you plant on your property. They could decide one day that they don't like roses, and demand that all roses be dug-up immediately.
Yes, I read the covenant when I purchased, but since the area which I live was all built up within the last 20 years, almost all property is HOA controlled in one way or another (except for buying a farm). It was a choice of buying a house with an HOA, buying one of the historic farm houses without an HOA -- typically with mold problems, buying farm land and privately building a house, or living in a rental. I didn't realize how much the existence of the HOA would irk me, or I probably would have gone with one of the moldy historic farm houses.
I understand the "you might affect my property value" arguments, but before I had to move for work, I lived for 15 years in a subdivision with no HOA (different state, older development). While I didn't always personally agree with my neighbors choices, none of them were atrocious. One neighbor put up a fence, but he asked me first. I didn't really want a fence there, but gave him my blessing anyway, since it was not an unreasonable request. Contrast to here where my neighbor put up a fence, after asking the HOA, but I had no input even though I am the one affected by it. I still would have said "go ahead," but I would have liked to have been consulted. Its just more "neighborly" somehow.
Growing up in SE lower Michigan, most of the municipal water was provided by the Detroit metro water supply, which for years was considered one of the best (quality) water systems in the country. (perhaps not so anymore, based on some recent news articles) The water is collected from the middle of Lake Huron, north of Port Huron. There are thousands of cottages along the lakeshore, with many of them having septic systems which empty into the lake. However, sunlight is good at sterilizing water (eventually), and there is a LOT of water in the Great Lakes (~20% of the world's fresh water), so what goes into the pipe is pretty good, even before the filtering and chlorination process.
I still wouldn't drink the lake water unprocessed, but I never had any concern about swimming/skiing in it. Which inevitably means I swallowed some, as I am not a very good water skier.
When the 3 lb drone gets sucked into the helicopters turbine engine, and that helicopter crashes, who pays for what?
I get your point, but it is probably an extremely low risk for a helicopter. The drone would get knocked down by the rotor-wash long before it got to the intake. A more likely example would be a fixed wing aircraft flying into a drone, but that doesn't fit the hypothetical story as well.
I don't recall what the numbers are, but there is an airspace floor, which pilots of "real" aircraft are not supposed to fly below (except for takeoff and landing, of course). Keep the drones there.
Of course, once you mandate the smoke canister, parachute, etc. you have mandated that the drone will be quite large, just to carry all the mandated gear. Getting hit by a 2 oz. quadcopter, is going to hurt a lot less than getting hit by the smoke canister carrying one, even if it has a parachute.
The original "editor" had it correct, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).
And what is wrong with the word "myriad?" It means "a countless or extremely great number." I suppose one could say that it is hyperbole, but one can lean on the "extremely great number" part of the definition, or if desired, add another word to make it "seemingly myriad."
(Ok, "several" may be more readable/accurate/etc., but it is nice to read words above a 5th grade level every once in a while.)
Ok. I'll take a stab, although I admit I am probably not the best one here to do so.
If Cox et al are common carriers, then the advantage legally is that they are not responsible for their customers bad behavior, as they have no control over it. Much like the phone company can't stop you from transacting an illegal activity over the phone. However if they are common carriers, they also can't discriminate between your traffic and Netflix (for example), to give Netflix higher (or lower) bandwidth. This is a disadvantage to cable co ISPs as Netflix, etc. is taking away from their HBO sales, On Demand, etc. This restriction is (to some*) known as Net Neutrality.
* I say "to some" because recently I have been hearing "net neutrality" used in a somewhat different way recently. A way in which I can't quite get my head around. This was from specific radio commentators, who I usually happen to agree with. Since they were speaking about specific legislation, and since several of them seemed to be operating from the same (strange) definition, I am not sure if the term has recently been redefined in the proposed bill, or if they just all got the concept wrong in the same way coincidentally. I would not put it past congress-critters to have redefined the term such that it means almost the exact opposite of what it used to mean, but I would not put it past the commentators to have misunderstood either.
This can happen regardless of color. As I understand it, the kid had removed the orange tips from the "gun" which is supposed to help the police know that it is a toy.* Orange tip or not, I can remember specifically telling my son that he was NOT to point his cap-gun at ANYONE, and he was not allowed to play with it in the car as we returned from Disneyworld, where we had purchased it.
* Re: the orange tips, I have always wondered how often (or why don't) criminals paint the tip of a real gun orange, just to gain that moment of hesitation on the part of the police.
If the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been passed in the 1980s, then this little government side-show would be black & white unconstitutional....
An interesting choice of words, especially considering the 14th amendment and '60s civil rights laws, etc. which did pass; yet we still have Ferguson today.
I need to correct myself slightly. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that Paul Allen bankrolled the initial venture. Branson came in somewhat later.
Either way, the point is the same, as my conversation preceeded both. Selling rides, at least in the form of offering them as a perk of being an investor, was disucssed very early on.
Sometimes, the development of a technology to make a commercial venture of it is enough to open up new and better ways to accomplish something. The government is actually typically rather poor at new development (although it can happen) as in the short term it is better to field something which you know will work now even if it is more expensive. In contrast, a business venture (even for tourism) wants to find the most efficient way to accomplish the task. It is that efficiency which drives the technology further, one baby step at a time.
This technology may only be useful for space tourism at this time, but there will be lessons learned in the process which will be useful for more practical purposes later. (even if the only lesson is "don't do it this way")
FWIW, I had a conversation with Burt Rutan (the designer of spacehip one and two) shortly after the X-prize was announced. From the beginning (before Richard Branson), Burt was talking about selling rides as a way to fund development. That Branson was willing to bankroll the project allowed Rutan to develop the aircraft without having to do so, with a certified passenger air/space craft as the end goal. (I know, and so did he, that there are all sorts of legal issues about selling rides in experimental aircraft. As I recall, the loophole would be to do some training and deputize your customer as an "investor" and "crewmember.")
Imagine if the [Wright flyer] crashed and killed one of the [Wright] brothers. Then some stupid journalist shows up and says "this stupid hobby you're working on isn't worth dying over because it will never amount to anything."
It is ignorant. Point blank.
Actually, on the one of the early demonstration flights for the US Army, Orville did crash. In the crash, the army observer/passenger 1st LT Thomas Selfridge died. (Orville was badly injured, but survived.) As a result, the US govt. did not buy into the newfangled airplane for a few years. IIRC, the Wrights instead went to France and sold airplanes to the french military.
I don't have any newpaper articles on hand, but I am sure that some of them said essentially what you propose, and you are absolutely correct, it is ignorant.
The nurse has tested negative for the Ebola virus. She has no symptoms.
As I understand it, nobody will test positive for the Ebola virus until well after they are able to transmit the disease because the test looks for the body's immune response to the virus, not the virus itself. The lack-of-quarrantine concern is that time period during the incubation period where the symptoms are still mild, but the disease may be transmissable. Probably a small window, but do you really want to be the one who gets hit by the improbable?
In all good risk analyses, one considers the consequence in addition to the probability of the risk. Ebola may be moderate or even low probability, but the consequences are severe. This is why many people would rather stay on the conservative/safe side of the decision matrix. That and a general distrust of the message being transmitted by the government experts. Distrust earned from being lied to in the past (or at least everything being heavily spun).
I am not saying it is right, just understandable.
BTW, keep in mind that the nurses who survived were able to avail themselves of plasma donated by the doctor who was flown in with ebola. This helps the body learn how to fight the virus. (Duncan had an incompatible blood type for this treatment.) There is only so much plasma which can be collected for this, even assuming compatible blood typing, so this will not be available to any sort of large outbreak.
I agree, and disagree. I have no issue with the concept of patent rights, or IP in general. There are some big issues with the implementation at the USPTO, etc., but that is another topic. I am not one of the "information wants to be free (so I am going to take it)" people.
Where we seem to disagree is what a proper (legally appropriate) response is when aggrieved. You are certainly allowed to defend your IP rights, either through the courts, or by attempting* to protect it technically. I can even empathize with your frustration when your work has been stolen. I was just saying that, as tempting as it may seem, one can't go over to the dark side and start repaying evil with evil. Bricking the end-user crosses that line; passively refusing to operate would be ok. It may not be as satisfying, but wearing the white hat means that one has a larger set of constraints than those in black. (How many more metaphors can I work in here?)
* I say "attempting" because historically the track record of such technical controls are rather poor. There is usually a technical work-around to the technical protection. One can attempt an arms-race, but there are limits to what one can do ethically. Which is back to my original point, again.
Personal insults aside, the citation was not germane to the original argument, but was in response to your questioning the ability to patent the mechanical design of a car seat, which was the parallel example that I was trying to use to make my on-topic argument. I don't have a bunch of case-law to cite, but neither do you. I am merely discussing the ethical ramifications of over-reacting.
P.S. Thanks for the spirited back and forth discussion. You can have the last post if you wish.
My move? Frankly, this has now gone far enough off topic that I am struggling to get it back on, but lets try anyhow.
Of course it is a specific system, all patents are. This just happens to be my specific system (assigned to my former employer). As to whether it is good or bad . . . time will tell. I certainly hadn't seen anything remotely like it when we developed it. What I can say is that millions of vehicles have been manufactured with it in the last seven years. (Yes, the corporate patent lawyers managed to stretch the application process out that long. Don't blame me.)
Good or bad, you are free to design around the patent, creating a system which performs a similar task through different means. (Yes, I am oversimplifying.) This is not a mistake in the patent system, it was done that way on purpose. If you can do it simpler, without losing functionality, I'll be the first to congratulate you.
None of this changes my original point regarding vigilanteism, and the potential for Streisand-like backfires.
(Hmm . . . With a better segue that might have counted for getting back on topic. As it is... Not so much. Feel free to bring it back home.)
Interesting... Try US patent # 8,801,101 : Vehicle Seating System
I have a few more. Both in the field of Automotive Seating (which you just stated couldn't be patented), and in other fields. How many do you have?
Anyhow... Peace "Bro". Nobody is mad here. On the other hand, you are the one who has been ranting about people "stealing your sh--." My point is just that vigalenteism only harms innocents. Go ahead and bring suit against the actual theves. Feel free to write your drivers to only work with your hardware. But do no harm otherwise (to the end user who is innocent, and likely unaware of who manufactured the componant parts.) I attempted to express this with humor first, and later with a more concrete example by transferring it to another modern day product, but apparently both attempts have been in vain.
P.S. It is also worth noting that in a discussion, generally whomever yells first (swears, calls names, etc) has lost the argument. I thank you for your submission.
So the next time you buy a car, I am justified slashing the tires because I notice that it contains a seat with similar designs to the one which I hold a patent on? (or perhaps just removing the valve from the tires, as that is "reversable.") It doesn't matter that you had nothing to do with the infringement, and no knowledge of its occurrance.
No mercy. You should have researched each part delivered with your new car, and asked the dealer to replace the infringing seat with one from a different make of vehicle which properly licenced my design.
The point is that you/FTDI are attacking the wrong person. The only logical response to such attacks is for the consumer to avoid all products which use FTDI chips, as the consumer cannot tell if they are counterfit until after they are rendered inoperable. I have no problem with you/FTDI refusing to work with the counterfit, but when your response crosses over to misplaced vigilanteism it is wrong. And despite it being cliche, two wrongs still don't make a right.
The problem is that FTDI wasn't screwing up "whomever is profiting from ripping [them] off." The device user likely purchased the device expecting a genuine chip. Refusing to work with the fake would have achieved the same effect, but would have left the user with the ability to (possibly) obtain a different driver (legal 3rd party, FOSS, etc).
Since you proposed a wild west analogy, it would be like finding out that a cattle rustler "borrowed" one of your free-range bulls to impregnate* his cows, the offpring of which were sold to local farmers. So, in retribution, you ride in and shoot all the calves which have similar patterned spots on their fur, thereby punishing the farmers who innocently purchased the calves at auction. Meanwhile, you have done nothing to the rustler who actually committed the crime.
Do this a few times and you are likely to be the one who is going to be lynched.
* The rustler returned the bull to the range. Only the bull's "software" was being copied. In case anyone wants to complain about the analogy, think about stud fees for prize bulls.
The only programs that I have encountered that don't work well with alsa without the need for a sound system on top of alsa are the ones with project leads that purposefully don't follow ALSA documentation.
I apologize for my lack of comprehension, and I am not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but I have a great deal of difficulty underdstanding this statement. I really did try; even to the point of doing tree graphs and venn diagrams of the sentence.
What I get is: Projects with leads who don't follow ALSA documentation are projects which don't need additional sound systems, and yet still don't work well with ALSA. (therefore maybe they DO need an additional sound system?)
or
The programs which don't work well with ALSA are the ones which don't have a sound systems on top, because the leads aren't following documentation.
Either way, I get that one needs to follow documentation and put a sound system on top. Is that what you intended?
or did you want to say that if you follow ALSA documentation, extra layers will not be required? (From context I expect the latter, but I can't get my brain to graph it that way.)
The problem which I see with comments on both sides of this thread is the assumption that one can hoard money, or that money can be put somewhere where it "just sits." The problem is that, unless Mr. Gates, et al. are taking CASH (paper) and making stacks of it in their basement/attic/wherever the money isn't just sitting anywhere.
Even if they just put it in a bank account (which is about the closest to making a pile out of it) it is then circulated through the economy via increased ability for the banks to loan, etc. (Ok, I am oversimplifying, but the point is still accurate.) More likely is that thier money has been invested somewhere. The reason that the rich can make more money in investments than the comparitively less-well-off is that you have to have a certain amount of money to be legally allowed to invest in the riskier investments, which are the ones which pay off big (or fail big). That risk of big failure is restricted to the rich exactly because they are less likely to be "hurt" by a failure, so if they get conned, they can afford it.
In any case, their accumulation of cash is still working in the economy, providing start-up loans to new businesses so that people can be hired, etc.
As to the non- or anti- productive examples given by the parent post: Just because sometimes a business has to downsize to better match the current economy, doesn't mean anything nefarious is happening. If you are making more product than you can sell, then you are making too much product. A stock buyback does affect the stock price, but it is essentially just the company becomming owned by fewer people, the people who sell the stock back have been compensated for their prior ownership, and are free to buy something else with their money. There may be a point to questioning the bubble speculation, but to fix that would be to further disallow smaller investors and only allow the richer investors to risk the bubble. Even in that case, every new industry may just be a bubble, and is a gamble, until it proves that it isn't. If you outlaw risk (overstated), then you will never have anything new (also overstated, but you get the point. I hope.).
I would never hire an employee who also owned IP relevant to my industry. This sounds like a nightmare employee with a mixed agenda.
Plenty of research students end up with a patent or two as a result of their research.
I think a key difference is who actually owns the prior patents. If the university or a prior employer own the patent then there is no issue; even though the patent bears his name, it really isn't his. On the other hand, if he is the sole (and actual) owner of the patent, then I agree, there are potential nightmares ahead.
I wonder if there might be some way to legally separate himself from the patents, much like politicians have to do with their retirement investments. Place them in (assign them to) some sort of hands-off managed trust, which would handle any potential licencing without input from him. Essentially, his resume would read like he was involved with a patent at a prior employer. The only odd point would be when he gets requested to figure out a work-around to his own patent, in order for his employer to avoid licencing.
That distinction may matter to the attention getters, but not to anyone else I've talked to.
No disagreement here. I just get tired of "the attention getters" constantly spinning everything to make it a race issue, when in many cases race had nothing to do with it.
Nobody suggested that there is a "threed" (except you), but one could validly ask why the #2 ordinal is called "second", and the #3 ordinal is "third". That is a different question however.
As others have pointed out... The less we spend treating cases here, the more we can spend on treating cases overseas. If we have a bunch of outbreaks here, we will no longer have the luxury of providing treatment in Africa because we will be expending resources at home (both money and medicine doses, etc).
Therefore it is more compassionate to be efficient.
He told the hospital he was in the hot zone, when they turned him away. Before later accepting him. The great health care service in the USA doesn't help people (especially blacks), hence why there is such a stink over this. He should have been admitted the first time, and wasn't.
He wasn't "turned away." He was provided anti-biotics, which is the standard fare (albeit wrong*) for someone suffering from a cold or flu. Although it was stupid of the hospital doctors/nurses not to take note of his travel, and suspect Ebola as a possibility, given the CDC's messages at the time it might be understandable. In it's early stages Ebola presents similar symtoms to a flu.
Just because you go through the Emergency enterance, doesn't mean you need to be admitted. It just means that you get seen without an appointment. I've been to the Emergency several times (metal chips in eye despite safety glasses, bleeding head wound, heart issues) and never been admitted. Usually just stitched up and sent home. Even with the heart issue, I was "observed" for a while, scheduled for a stress-test, and sent home once they determined that it was not going to kill me right-now. (they also gave me an asprin and a nitroglycerine tablet while they observed me.)
The whole "turned away" thing is being drummed up by the Jessie Jacksons, etc. who are ambulance chasing for another chance to make themselves relevant, and stir up trouble at the same time.
* I can remember several times where doctors have said to me, "I don't know if it is bacterial or viral. I could take cultures, but that would take a while to get the lab work back, so meanwhile I will give you this anti-biotic, which will either work or will do no harm if it doesn't." This was a few years ago. More recently, with the increasing prevalance of resistant diseases, this practice seems to have diminished somewhat.
Slashdot Mirror
Well in the US most neighborhoods don't have a HOA anyways. They are a select few, and they setup mostly to keep the values of their homes, and insure a comfortable living environment. . . .
I disagree with the assertion (made by several posters, not just the above post) that HOAs are somehow unusual. It varies by locale, but in general any subdivision* created in the last 30 years has a HOA. The HOA is how the builder ensures that he can sell all the lots over the 10 year period he is building there, because the early owners aren't allowed to do anything that the builder thinks would detract from sales. Unfortunately, the HOA continues to exist after the builder is done and gone.
*Note that by "subdivision" I am referring to the case where a builder buys somebody's farm, and sells lots with homes built by that builder. Not the case where the farm owner subdivides his land and sells lots to private parties who then find their own builder to construct the home.
Yes, I live in a subdivision with an HOA. Although I've not had any problems with the HOA, I dislike it on principal. In particular the fact that every rule ends with "or other rules as may be given by the HOA board." As a result the current idiots on the board can essentially just make up any new rules that they want, without a general vote. And this covers everything from parking to what flowers you plant on your property. They could decide one day that they don't like roses, and demand that all roses be dug-up immediately.
Yes, I read the covenant when I purchased, but since the area which I live was all built up within the last 20 years, almost all property is HOA controlled in one way or another (except for buying a farm). It was a choice of buying a house with an HOA, buying one of the historic farm houses without an HOA -- typically with mold problems, buying farm land and privately building a house, or living in a rental. I didn't realize how much the existence of the HOA would irk me, or I probably would have gone with one of the moldy historic farm houses.
I understand the "you might affect my property value" arguments, but before I had to move for work, I lived for 15 years in a subdivision with no HOA (different state, older development). While I didn't always personally agree with my neighbors choices, none of them were atrocious. One neighbor put up a fence, but he asked me first. I didn't really want a fence there, but gave him my blessing anyway, since it was not an unreasonable request. Contrast to here where my neighbor put up a fence, after asking the HOA, but I had no input even though I am the one affected by it. I still would have said "go ahead," but I would have liked to have been consulted. Its just more "neighborly" somehow.
Growing up in SE lower Michigan, most of the municipal water was provided by the Detroit metro water supply, which for years was considered one of the best (quality) water systems in the country. (perhaps not so anymore, based on some recent news articles) The water is collected from the middle of Lake Huron, north of Port Huron. There are thousands of cottages along the lakeshore, with many of them having septic systems which empty into the lake. However, sunlight is good at sterilizing water (eventually), and there is a LOT of water in the Great Lakes (~20% of the world's fresh water), so what goes into the pipe is pretty good, even before the filtering and chlorination process.
I still wouldn't drink the lake water unprocessed, but I never had any concern about swimming/skiing in it. Which inevitably means I swallowed some, as I am not a very good water skier.
When the 3 lb drone gets sucked into the helicopters turbine engine, and that helicopter crashes, who pays for what?
I get your point, but it is probably an extremely low risk for a helicopter. The drone would get knocked down by the rotor-wash long before it got to the intake. A more likely example would be a fixed wing aircraft flying into a drone, but that doesn't fit the hypothetical story as well.
I don't recall what the numbers are, but there is an airspace floor, which pilots of "real" aircraft are not supposed to fly below (except for takeoff and landing, of course). Keep the drones there.
Of course, once you mandate the smoke canister, parachute, etc. you have mandated that the drone will be quite large, just to carry all the mandated gear. Getting hit by a 2 oz. quadcopter, is going to hurt a lot less than getting hit by the smoke canister carrying one, even if it has a parachute.
The original "editor" had it correct, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).
And what is wrong with the word "myriad?" It means "a countless or extremely great number." I suppose one could say that it is hyperbole, but one can lean on the "extremely great number" part of the definition, or if desired, add another word to make it "seemingly myriad."
(Ok, "several" may be more readable/accurate/etc., but it is nice to read words above a 5th grade level every once in a while.)
Ok. I'll take a stab, although I admit I am probably not the best one here to do so.
If Cox et al are common carriers, then the advantage legally is that they are not responsible for their customers bad behavior, as they have no control over it. Much like the phone company can't stop you from transacting an illegal activity over the phone. However if they are common carriers, they also can't discriminate between your traffic and Netflix (for example), to give Netflix higher (or lower) bandwidth. This is a disadvantage to cable co ISPs as Netflix, etc. is taking away from their HBO sales, On Demand, etc. This restriction is (to some*) known as Net Neutrality.
* I say "to some" because recently I have been hearing "net neutrality" used in a somewhat different way recently. A way in which I can't quite get my head around. This was from specific radio commentators, who I usually happen to agree with. Since they were speaking about specific legislation, and since several of them seemed to be operating from the same (strange) definition, I am not sure if the term has recently been redefined in the proposed bill, or if they just all got the concept wrong in the same way coincidentally. I would not put it past congress-critters to have redefined the term such that it means almost the exact opposite of what it used to mean, but I would not put it past the commentators to have misunderstood either.
This can happen regardless of color. As I understand it, the kid had removed the orange tips from the "gun" which is supposed to help the police know that it is a toy.* Orange tip or not, I can remember specifically telling my son that he was NOT to point his cap-gun at ANYONE, and he was not allowed to play with it in the car as we returned from Disneyworld, where we had purchased it.
* Re: the orange tips, I have always wondered how often (or why don't) criminals paint the tip of a real gun orange, just to gain that moment of hesitation on the part of the police.
If the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been passed in the 1980s, then this little government side-show would be black & white unconstitutional....
An interesting choice of words, especially considering the 14th amendment and '60s civil rights laws, etc. which did pass; yet we still have Ferguson today.
I need to correct myself slightly. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that Paul Allen bankrolled the initial venture. Branson came in somewhat later.
Either way, the point is the same, as my conversation preceeded both. Selling rides, at least in the form of offering them as a perk of being an investor, was disucssed very early on.
Sometimes, the development of a technology to make a commercial venture of it is enough to open up new and better ways to accomplish something. The government is actually typically rather poor at new development (although it can happen) as in the short term it is better to field something which you know will work now even if it is more expensive. In contrast, a business venture (even for tourism) wants to find the most efficient way to accomplish the task. It is that efficiency which drives the technology further, one baby step at a time.
This technology may only be useful for space tourism at this time, but there will be lessons learned in the process which will be useful for more practical purposes later. (even if the only lesson is "don't do it this way")
FWIW, I had a conversation with Burt Rutan (the designer of spacehip one and two) shortly after the X-prize was announced. From the beginning (before Richard Branson), Burt was talking about selling rides as a way to fund development. That Branson was willing to bankroll the project allowed Rutan to develop the aircraft without having to do so, with a certified passenger air/space craft as the end goal. (I know, and so did he, that there are all sorts of legal issues about selling rides in experimental aircraft. As I recall, the loophole would be to do some training and deputize your customer as an "investor" and "crewmember.")
Imagine if the [Wright flyer] crashed and killed one of the [Wright] brothers. Then some stupid journalist shows up and says "this stupid hobby you're working on isn't worth dying over because it will never amount to anything."
It is ignorant. Point blank.
Actually, on the one of the early demonstration flights for the US Army, Orville did crash. In the crash, the army observer/passenger 1st LT Thomas Selfridge died. (Orville was badly injured, but survived.) As a result, the US govt. did not buy into the newfangled airplane for a few years. IIRC, the Wrights instead went to France and sold airplanes to the french military.
I don't have any newpaper articles on hand, but I am sure that some of them said essentially what you propose, and you are absolutely correct, it is ignorant.
The nurse has tested negative for the Ebola virus. She has no symptoms.
As I understand it, nobody will test positive for the Ebola virus until well after they are able to transmit the disease because the test looks for the body's immune response to the virus, not the virus itself. The lack-of-quarrantine concern is that time period during the incubation period where the symptoms are still mild, but the disease may be transmissable. Probably a small window, but do you really want to be the one who gets hit by the improbable?
In all good risk analyses, one considers the consequence in addition to the probability of the risk. Ebola may be moderate or even low probability, but the consequences are severe. This is why many people would rather stay on the conservative/safe side of the decision matrix. That and a general distrust of the message being transmitted by the government experts. Distrust earned from being lied to in the past (or at least everything being heavily spun).
I am not saying it is right, just understandable.
BTW, keep in mind that the nurses who survived were able to avail themselves of plasma donated by the doctor who was flown in with ebola. This helps the body learn how to fight the virus. (Duncan had an incompatible blood type for this treatment.) There is only so much plasma which can be collected for this, even assuming compatible blood typing, so this will not be available to any sort of large outbreak.
I agree, and disagree. I have no issue with the concept of patent rights, or IP in general. There are some big issues with the implementation at the USPTO, etc., but that is another topic. I am not one of the "information wants to be free (so I am going to take it)" people.
Where we seem to disagree is what a proper (legally appropriate) response is when aggrieved. You are certainly allowed to defend your IP rights, either through the courts, or by attempting* to protect it technically. I can even empathize with your frustration when your work has been stolen. I was just saying that, as tempting as it may seem, one can't go over to the dark side and start repaying evil with evil. Bricking the end-user crosses that line; passively refusing to operate would be ok. It may not be as satisfying, but wearing the white hat means that one has a larger set of constraints than those in black. (How many more metaphors can I work in here?)
* I say "attempting" because historically the track record of such technical controls are rather poor. There is usually a technical work-around to the technical protection. One can attempt an arms-race, but there are limits to what one can do ethically. Which is back to my original point, again.
Personal insults aside, the citation was not germane to the original argument, but was in response to your questioning the ability to patent the mechanical design of a car seat, which was the parallel example that I was trying to use to make my on-topic argument. I don't have a bunch of case-law to cite, but neither do you. I am merely discussing the ethical ramifications of over-reacting.
P.S. Thanks for the spirited back and forth discussion. You can have the last post if you wish.
My move? Frankly, this has now gone far enough off topic that I am struggling to get it back on, but lets try anyhow.
Of course it is a specific system, all patents are. This just happens to be my specific system (assigned to my former employer). As to whether it is good or bad . . . time will tell. I certainly hadn't seen anything remotely like it when we developed it. What I can say is that millions of vehicles have been manufactured with it in the last seven years. (Yes, the corporate patent lawyers managed to stretch the application process out that long. Don't blame me.)
Good or bad, you are free to design around the patent, creating a system which performs a similar task through different means. (Yes, I am oversimplifying.) This is not a mistake in the patent system, it was done that way on purpose. If you can do it simpler, without losing functionality, I'll be the first to congratulate you.
None of this changes my original point regarding vigilanteism, and the potential for Streisand-like backfires.
(Hmm . . . With a better segue that might have counted for getting back on topic. As it is... Not so much. Feel free to bring it back home.)
You can't patient that.
Interesting... Try US patent # 8,801,101 : Vehicle Seating System
I have a few more. Both in the field of Automotive Seating (which you just stated couldn't be patented), and in other fields. How many do you have?
Anyhow... Peace "Bro". Nobody is mad here. On the other hand, you are the one who has been ranting about people "stealing your sh--." My point is just that vigalenteism only harms innocents. Go ahead and bring suit against the actual theves. Feel free to write your drivers to only work with your hardware. But do no harm otherwise (to the end user who is innocent, and likely unaware of who manufactured the componant parts.) I attempted to express this with humor first, and later with a more concrete example by transferring it to another modern day product, but apparently both attempts have been in vain.
P.S. It is also worth noting that in a discussion, generally whomever yells first (swears, calls names, etc) has lost the argument. I thank you for your submission.
So the next time you buy a car, I am justified slashing the tires because I notice that it contains a seat with similar designs to the one which I hold a patent on? (or perhaps just removing the valve from the tires, as that is "reversable.") It doesn't matter that you had nothing to do with the infringement, and no knowledge of its occurrance.
No mercy. You should have researched each part delivered with your new car, and asked the dealer to replace the infringing seat with one from a different make of vehicle which properly licenced my design.
The point is that you/FTDI are attacking the wrong person. The only logical response to such attacks is for the consumer to avoid all products which use FTDI chips, as the consumer cannot tell if they are counterfit until after they are rendered inoperable. I have no problem with you/FTDI refusing to work with the counterfit, but when your response crosses over to misplaced vigilanteism it is wrong. And despite it being cliche, two wrongs still don't make a right.
The problem is that FTDI wasn't screwing up "whomever is profiting from ripping [them] off." The device user likely purchased the device expecting a genuine chip. Refusing to work with the fake would have achieved the same effect, but would have left the user with the ability to (possibly) obtain a different driver (legal 3rd party, FOSS, etc).
Since you proposed a wild west analogy, it would be like finding out that a cattle rustler "borrowed" one of your free-range bulls to impregnate* his cows, the offpring of which were sold to local farmers. So, in retribution, you ride in and shoot all the calves which have similar patterned spots on their fur, thereby punishing the farmers who innocently purchased the calves at auction. Meanwhile, you have done nothing to the rustler who actually committed the crime.
Do this a few times and you are likely to be the one who is going to be lynched.
* The rustler returned the bull to the range. Only the bull's "software" was being copied. In case anyone wants to complain about the analogy, think about stud fees for prize bulls.
The comma might recieve a pardon, but the first period and capital B on "But" will be tried, found guilty, and executed immediately.
The only programs that I have encountered that don't work well with alsa without the need for a sound system on top of alsa are the ones with project leads that purposefully don't follow ALSA documentation.
I apologize for my lack of comprehension, and I am not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but I have a great deal of difficulty underdstanding this statement. I really did try; even to the point of doing tree graphs and venn diagrams of the sentence.
What I get is: Projects with leads who don't follow ALSA documentation are projects which don't need additional sound systems, and yet still don't work well with ALSA. (therefore maybe they DO need an additional sound system?)
or
The programs which don't work well with ALSA are the ones which don't have a sound systems on top, because the leads aren't following documentation.
Either way, I get that one needs to follow documentation and put a sound system on top. Is that what you intended?
or did you want to say that if you follow ALSA documentation, extra layers will not be required? (From context I expect the latter, but I can't get my brain to graph it that way.)
The problem which I see with comments on both sides of this thread is the assumption that one can hoard money, or that money can be put somewhere where it "just sits." The problem is that, unless Mr. Gates, et al. are taking CASH (paper) and making stacks of it in their basement/attic/wherever the money isn't just sitting anywhere.
Even if they just put it in a bank account (which is about the closest to making a pile out of it) it is then circulated through the economy via increased ability for the banks to loan, etc. (Ok, I am oversimplifying, but the point is still accurate.) More likely is that thier money has been invested somewhere. The reason that the rich can make more money in investments than the comparitively less-well-off is that you have to have a certain amount of money to be legally allowed to invest in the riskier investments, which are the ones which pay off big (or fail big). That risk of big failure is restricted to the rich exactly because they are less likely to be "hurt" by a failure, so if they get conned, they can afford it.
In any case, their accumulation of cash is still working in the economy, providing start-up loans to new businesses so that people can be hired, etc.
As to the non- or anti- productive examples given by the parent post: Just because sometimes a business has to downsize to better match the current economy, doesn't mean anything nefarious is happening. If you are making more product than you can sell, then you are making too much product. A stock buyback does affect the stock price, but it is essentially just the company becomming owned by fewer people, the people who sell the stock back have been compensated for their prior ownership, and are free to buy something else with their money. There may be a point to questioning the bubble speculation, but to fix that would be to further disallow smaller investors and only allow the richer investors to risk the bubble. Even in that case, every new industry may just be a bubble, and is a gamble, until it proves that it isn't. If you outlaw risk (overstated), then you will never have anything new (also overstated, but you get the point. I hope.).
I would never hire an employee who also owned IP relevant to my industry. This sounds like a nightmare employee with a mixed agenda.
Plenty of research students end up with a patent or two as a result of their research.
I think a key difference is who actually owns the prior patents. If the university or a prior employer own the patent then there is no issue; even though the patent bears his name, it really isn't his. On the other hand, if he is the sole (and actual) owner of the patent, then I agree, there are potential nightmares ahead.
I wonder if there might be some way to legally separate himself from the patents, much like politicians have to do with their retirement investments. Place them in (assign them to) some sort of hands-off managed trust, which would handle any potential licencing without input from him. Essentially, his resume would read like he was involved with a patent at a prior employer. The only odd point would be when he gets requested to figure out a work-around to his own patent, in order for his employer to avoid licencing.
That distinction may matter to the attention getters, but not to anyone else I've talked to.
No disagreement here. I just get tired of "the attention getters" constantly spinning everything to make it a race issue, when in many cases race had nothing to do with it.
The comparison was to ordinal numbering
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, ...
versus
whole, half, third, fourth (or quarter), fifth.
Nobody suggested that there is a "threed" (except you), but one could validly ask why the #2 ordinal is called "second", and the #3 ordinal is "third". That is a different question however.
As others have pointed out... The less we spend treating cases here, the more we can spend on treating cases overseas. If we have a bunch of outbreaks here, we will no longer have the luxury of providing treatment in Africa because we will be expending resources at home (both money and medicine doses, etc).
Therefore it is more compassionate to be efficient.
He told the hospital he was in the hot zone, when they turned him away. Before later accepting him. The great health care service in the USA doesn't help people (especially blacks), hence why there is such a stink over this. He should have been admitted the first time, and wasn't.
He wasn't "turned away." He was provided anti-biotics, which is the standard fare (albeit wrong*) for someone suffering from a cold or flu. Although it was stupid of the hospital doctors/nurses not to take note of his travel, and suspect Ebola as a possibility, given the CDC's messages at the time it might be understandable. In it's early stages Ebola presents similar symtoms to a flu.
Just because you go through the Emergency enterance, doesn't mean you need to be admitted. It just means that you get seen without an appointment. I've been to the Emergency several times (metal chips in eye despite safety glasses, bleeding head wound, heart issues) and never been admitted. Usually just stitched up and sent home. Even with the heart issue, I was "observed" for a while, scheduled for a stress-test, and sent home once they determined that it was not going to kill me right-now. (they also gave me an asprin and a nitroglycerine tablet while they observed me.)
The whole "turned away" thing is being drummed up by the Jessie Jacksons, etc. who are ambulance chasing for another chance to make themselves relevant, and stir up trouble at the same time.
* I can remember several times where doctors have said to me, "I don't know if it is bacterial or viral. I could take cultures, but that would take a while to get the lab work back, so meanwhile I will give you this anti-biotic, which will either work or will do no harm if it doesn't." This was a few years ago. More recently, with the increasing prevalance of resistant diseases, this practice seems to have diminished somewhat.