Just because you already typed it didn't mean you had to post it. Why not rewrite it and fill in the links in the rewritten addition instead of wasting our time. Thanks a lot.
Then you take away the owner's of those places' right to free speech. If I have a restaraunt and I have a "no cussing or you get kicked out policy," that restriction, believe it or not, is a form of speech.
You read "somewhere"? Why don't you be honest and say you read it on the internet. You know, I overheard at a local McDonald's the other day that their employees are looked upon by the women of our society as sexual gods. Granted I heard it from a McDonald's employee.
It was one of the requirements that they didn't. Still $4500 is more than you will get under many government grants working for the summer. Considering that most open source internships before this paid "$0" (you don't typically get paid for fiddling around on some code in your apartment all summer) $4500 is not anything to laugh off.
If you base it on the structure of the information itself you run into spam attacks, etc. Google already gets structure out of teh web by using external links that point to a page, I don't see how this is anything but a step backwards.
If you work as a research assistant for a prof. under a grant you can make as low as $7 - 9 an hour. It is certainly enough to live on if you are getting that for 40 hours a week and it comes out to about what Google paid. Bitching about it like this is pathetic; of course a private sector internship hacking on databases is going to pay more than a job doing what you love. Tell me the internship numbers in the gaming industry if you want a better comparison. They are either unpaid or are just as low. If you are a student working your way through school without assistance you might be better off getting an internship in the general business sector. Otherwise, $4500 will definitely pay a summer's rent and food costs.
Beware of bandwidth limiters that work like that. When something like that is used on an upload pipe to prevent for instance ACKs from not getting through, it isn't always quite so easy. If you have a real fast connection and you set it to use half of your bandwidth, the "chunks" it splits the outgoing data into are going to be huge. What will in effect happen is it will max out your bandwidth for half a second every second (replace second with how often it is going off) and you will still miss ACKs.
Maybe it isn't coded exactly as you stated and it avoids this problem, but I'm just issuing caution. Dedicated packet shapers are much better suited for this purpose.
Ok, maybe it wouldn't have come to light without nVidia and maybe nVidia has done it too; so what: the Quack story wasn't made up and I am glad I heard about it. Through that story I learned a lot of the dirty stuff that both manufacturers do to artificially boost their numbers.
You are wrong on the generic drug thing, at least in the case of Brazil. The drugs for which Brazil wanted generic manufactoring were covered by patents. Generic just means non-exclusive (not patented) or unbranded. If Brazil waived off the patent rights of the holder they would then go on to have it manufactured by as many companies as possible and the original drug would become, in Brazil, a place no longer recognizing the patent on the drug, a drug with generic alternatives.
My senior level CS classes are around 90% male 10% female. First year classes were around 70% male 30% female. The table-top gaming club on our campus has one female and around 20 guys.
As long as we are fear mongering: the current drugs are not fully effective at stopping avian flu--there is much room for improvement. After looking at the history of the Spanish Flu these current drugs were developed because it seemed like a huge profit potential. Let's say around the world these patents are ignored because of the grave risk. We have another flu outbreak and because of these drugs only a comparable number of people die as did from the Spanish Flu; a notable achievement with our increasingly densely populated and mobile world. Lets say the complete freeing of the patents saved around 3 million lives (and lots of money for the govenments! After all, they couldn't pay 300 million dollars for 3 million lives; $10 a life, are you crazy?!).
Now, we did pretty good this round, but as I mentioned above, "there is much room for improvement" in the drugs. Now, we have handled the outbreak and the drug companies realize hey, this really was a big deal, this is something that is important and we should work on better vaccines, etc.. Someone will stand up at every single one of those meetings and say, "we saw this before, we thought hard about the flu problem and worked on it even when we knew it would only pay off as a big one shot deal. We came up with something really beneficial. When it came time to be rewarded for our work the government undercut us, our big one shot turned into their big free right. How can you suggest that we go on to truely solve the problem when the better the job we do, the more governments will be able to justify taking our invention."
Then the next flu comes and we are left with the same tech we had in solving the last one and and even denser population and faster transportation. The patents on all the old methods are up anyway, so in either scenario we would have at least the same tech available during this flu. In the scenario where the patents are respected initially we would have better tech and overall we save more lives. In the scenario where the patents are ignored more people overall die.
So I guess in answer to your question, "The point here seems to be how many patients have to die before this reasoning ceases to make sense. One? Ten? A thousand? A million?" I can only say, whatever causes the least amount to die. Each scenario has to be examined on its own and I'm not saying that the scenario I outlined is the one we are facing. I'm just saying that you can't make a blanket statement that when lives are at risk in the short term we must do whatever we can to save them without regard for the long term.
What if you know that it will cause one or more deaths in the short term, but will save many more lives in the long term. That is what balance is about. If you just turned every current drug patent into a free-for-all you probably would save a lot of lives. It would then be quite hard to progress to new technologies to save many more lives though when there was no motivation to underwrite future research.
Often when say a big powerplant is going to be built on your property the entity building gets to use the "market value" after the powerplant was announced and everyone's property around yours plummeted.
"The pharmaceutical companies, for obvious (but shameful) reasons, opposed the introduction of generics in Brazil." I guess you are talking about profit here? If their drugs were more profitable they would have incentive to create even more drugs. Is 20 years (a patent term) that long to wait to freely reap the benefits of the research? You are telling me there is something Brazil just can't live without, for free (or for manufacturing costs (generics)) that didn't even exist 20 years ago? All they are doing is assuring that in the future even less drugs becomes available.
The system we are under today is not the best, but how a free-for-all would help I have no idea. These drugs that are so badly wanted today would never have been created in the first place if everyone got to just get them for manufactoring cost only.
"But, after just under a month of daily use, my own nano is badly scratched, and looks beat up when viewed at an angle. Worse, there are several large scratches across the screen that impede functionality by making text and photos slightly harder to see. I have never tested or owned any portable electronic device that picked up as many scratches as quickly as the iPod nano."
I guess I should specify that I was talking about US law. If you make a prohibited copy of something in the US you are automatically liable for ~$250 (I can't recall the exact number, it is less than $1000). It doesn't matter if there are no damages whatsoever.
A faulty product doesn't do something it claims to do. This is not a faulty product. It is a shitty product. The two aren't mutually exclusive but in this case only one property applies: shitty. There is a big difference between a faulty product and a shitty one: you can't sue because a product is shitty.
Well then they have a valid suit: if the scratches were on the unit when they received it. If they weren't, and they didn't appear because of a latent chemical reaction, then they have no case. You can't sue someone over a shitty product. If you have the time to sue you should have had them time to read a review.
And beyond that: next time you buy a product read about it first. The scratchablity has been noted all over the place. If you have the time open a lawsuit over the product you certainly have time to read a a goddamn review.
Slashdot Mirror
Facts? You want me to produce facts to backup bad claims?
Just because you already typed it didn't mean you had to post it. Why not rewrite it and fill in the links in the rewritten addition instead of wasting our time. Thanks a lot.
Then you take away the owner's of those places' right to free speech. If I have a restaraunt and I have a "no cussing or you get kicked out policy," that restriction, believe it or not, is a form of speech.
Google Talk voice support for Linux is already being worked on by Google. They recently hired the cheif developer of gaim.
You read "somewhere"? Why don't you be honest and say you read it on the internet. You know, I overheard at a local McDonald's the other day that their employees are looked upon by the women of our society as sexual gods. Granted I heard it from a McDonald's employee.
Boo hoo, most philanthropic internships are unpaid you whiney little shit.
It was one of the requirements that they didn't. Still $4500 is more than you will get under many government grants working for the summer. Considering that most open source internships before this paid "$0" (you don't typically get paid for fiddling around on some code in your apartment all summer) $4500 is not anything to laugh off.
If you base it on the structure of the information itself you run into spam attacks, etc. Google already gets structure out of teh web by using external links that point to a page, I don't see how this is anything but a step backwards.
If you work as a research assistant for a prof. under a grant you can make as low as $7 - 9 an hour. It is certainly enough to live on if you are getting that for 40 hours a week and it comes out to about what Google paid. Bitching about it like this is pathetic; of course a private sector internship hacking on databases is going to pay more than a job doing what you love. Tell me the internship numbers in the gaming industry if you want a better comparison. They are either unpaid or are just as low. If you are a student working your way through school without assistance you might be better off getting an internship in the general business sector. Otherwise, $4500 will definitely pay a summer's rent and food costs.
Beware of bandwidth limiters that work like that. When something like that is used on an upload pipe to prevent for instance ACKs from not getting through, it isn't always quite so easy. If you have a real fast connection and you set it to use half of your bandwidth, the "chunks" it splits the outgoing data into are going to be huge. What will in effect happen is it will max out your bandwidth for half a second every second (replace second with how often it is going off) and you will still miss ACKs.
Maybe it isn't coded exactly as you stated and it avoids this problem, but I'm just issuing caution. Dedicated packet shapers are much better suited for this purpose.
Ok, maybe it wouldn't have come to light without nVidia and maybe nVidia has done it too; so what: the Quack story wasn't made up and I am glad I heard about it. Through that story I learned a lot of the dirty stuff that both manufacturers do to artificially boost their numbers.
You don't lose the DVD menus; they don't exist on screeners designed for reviews before a picture has made it to the cinema.
It is from the wireless controllers which in fact do use the 2.4ghz spectrum used by 802.11b.
You are wrong on the generic drug thing, at least in the case of Brazil. The drugs for which Brazil wanted generic manufactoring were covered by patents. Generic just means non-exclusive (not patented) or unbranded. If Brazil waived off the patent rights of the holder they would then go on to have it manufactured by as many companies as possible and the original drug would become, in Brazil, a place no longer recognizing the patent on the drug, a drug with generic alternatives.
My senior level CS classes are around 90% male 10% female. First year classes were around 70% male 30% female. The table-top gaming club on our campus has one female and around 20 guys.
As long as we are fear mongering: the current drugs are not fully effective at stopping avian flu--there is much room for improvement. After looking at the history of the Spanish Flu these current drugs were developed because it seemed like a huge profit potential. Let's say around the world these patents are ignored because of the grave risk. We have another flu outbreak and because of these drugs only a comparable number of people die as did from the Spanish Flu; a notable achievement with our increasingly densely populated and mobile world. Lets say the complete freeing of the patents saved around 3 million lives (and lots of money for the govenments! After all, they couldn't pay 300 million dollars for 3 million lives; $10 a life, are you crazy?!).
Now, we did pretty good this round, but as I mentioned above, "there is much room for improvement" in the drugs. Now, we have handled the outbreak and the drug companies realize hey, this really was a big deal, this is something that is important and we should work on better vaccines, etc.. Someone will stand up at every single one of those meetings and say, "we saw this before, we thought hard about the flu problem and worked on it even when we knew it would only pay off as a big one shot deal. We came up with something really beneficial. When it came time to be rewarded for our work the government undercut us, our big one shot turned into their big free right. How can you suggest that we go on to truely solve the problem when the better the job we do, the more governments will be able to justify taking our invention."
Then the next flu comes and we are left with the same tech we had in solving the last one and and even denser population and faster transportation. The patents on all the old methods are up anyway, so in either scenario we would have at least the same tech available during this flu. In the scenario where the patents are respected initially we would have better tech and overall we save more lives. In the scenario where the patents are ignored more people overall die.
So I guess in answer to your question, "The point here seems to be how many patients have to die before this reasoning ceases to make sense. One? Ten? A thousand? A million?" I can only say, whatever causes the least amount to die. Each scenario has to be examined on its own and I'm not saying that the scenario I outlined is the one we are facing. I'm just saying that you can't make a blanket statement that when lives are at risk in the short term we must do whatever we can to save them without regard for the long term.What if you know that it will cause one or more deaths in the short term, but will save many more lives in the long term. That is what balance is about. If you just turned every current drug patent into a free-for-all you probably would save a lot of lives. It would then be quite hard to progress to new technologies to save many more lives though when there was no motivation to underwrite future research.
Often when say a big powerplant is going to be built on your property the entity building gets to use the "market value" after the powerplant was announced and everyone's property around yours plummeted.
"The pharmaceutical companies, for obvious (but shameful) reasons, opposed the introduction of generics in Brazil." I guess you are talking about profit here? If their drugs were more profitable they would have incentive to create even more drugs. Is 20 years (a patent term) that long to wait to freely reap the benefits of the research? You are telling me there is something Brazil just can't live without, for free (or for manufacturing costs (generics)) that didn't even exist 20 years ago? All they are doing is assuring that in the future even less drugs becomes available.
The system we are under today is not the best, but how a free-for-all would help I have no idea. These drugs that are so badly wanted today would never have been created in the first place if everyone got to just get them for manufactoring cost only.
No one wants them to try and research it now. They want them to help pay for some of the research that already has been done.
Nice use of emphasis; let me try this new game:
"But, after just under a month of daily use, my own nano is badly scratched, and looks beat up when viewed at an angle. Worse, there are several large scratches across the screen that impede functionality by making text and photos slightly harder to see. I have never tested or owned any portable electronic device that picked up as many scratches as quickly as the iPod nano."
I guess I should specify that I was talking about US law. If you make a prohibited copy of something in the US you are automatically liable for ~$250 (I can't recall the exact number, it is less than $1000). It doesn't matter if there are no damages whatsoever.
A faulty product doesn't do something it claims to do. This is not a faulty product. It is a shitty product. The two aren't mutually exclusive but in this case only one property applies: shitty. There is a big difference between a faulty product and a shitty one: you can't sue because a product is shitty.
Well then they have a valid suit: if the scratches were on the unit when they received it. If they weren't, and they didn't appear because of a latent chemical reaction, then they have no case. You can't sue someone over a shitty product. If you have the time to sue you should have had them time to read a review.
And beyond that: next time you buy a product read about it first. The scratchablity has been noted all over the place. If you have the time open a lawsuit over the product you certainly have time to read a a goddamn review.