It's not a matter of nature does it v.s. we do it. People are hesitant because it is new, and it is not clear that all genetically modified products are manufactured in "intelligently guided ways".
As more people learn about this stuff we will collectively know more, establish regulations, and you will be able to get your bloody fish from 7-11.
Disclosure: I don't have an SUV but I see idiots wasting time and money on stupid pieces of shit all the time.
One can extend your argument to a point where anything beyond a geo metro is overkill for the vast majority of the population. Life is variety, life is choice. And we are all thankful for that.
Why not root for rules and regulations that will stop artificial incentives on these vehicles and that will stop their mf'ing owners from parking at street corners? I think given the chance these things will self regulate. Trucks are not cars...
Think of all the other "methods" that could be infringing a given patent/method. With the way the companies are suing and courts deciding, these infringing "methods" easily start culminating into common concepts. In other words, anything remotely related can be (and typically is) thought to be infringing.
Auctions over electronic media new? No, but ebay has a court decision that says they are infringing somebody's method and they have to pay up.
I think the distinction between marketing and advertising (as you describe them) is much less pronounced these days. With revenues and jobs under pressure it is so much easier to assume everybody is your market. Who has time, patience and skills for a creful and costly market analysis.
Besides you have these overhormoned individuals who yell at folks to "BUY NOW!" "OWN IT!" etc. You hire a few of these apes and keep pushing crap out the door to folks that are not really the target market.
Oh, there is also this other group of marketing drones: They pretend that they are knowledgeable about the product, they say it will cure all problems, and when you ask how, they repeat.
I agree with your points and I also have a dumb question. Couldn't find a better place to post it really.
How come companies import goods into this country and pay import taxes in addition to corporate taxes? I mean why can't they say they just outsourced everything and just pay income taxes in the US, i.e., avoid the import taxes, duties, tariffs whatever.
Re: I'd like to use it ... to get product reviews
on
Real-World Hyperlinks
·
· Score: 1
The only thing you will get is pushy marketing, advertisements, and critical reviews by Joel Siegel (spelling ?).
As the amount of capital increases it becomes very difficult to get a good interest rate on it. I doubt you can get anything close to 5% in "low risk" investments to 259 billion.
Depending on how "low risk" we are talking here, 5% may be a very good rate for any amount.
Pardonne
Re:Lem, Keyes, Wolfram and a Few Thoughts
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Good point about Wolfram's material. I didn't read the book but saw his talk. I think if you subscribe to what he is saying then the main advantage a super intelligence will have is that it will figure out which problems are simple and which ones are hard pretty quickly. In addition it may be able to find simple but maybe coarse approximations to complex problems. Beyond that it will just be modifying some constants in the time it takes to understand the galactic algorithm.
> In part, I must disagree. I would say that only > ideas worth paying for must be paid for.
Goes without saying, I had implicitly assumed this.
> I don't have serious problems with the current > system in general, just in how it happens to > presently be implemented. I feel that a better > implementation is well within our grasp, if we > simply focus on societal needs, and reduce > protections to a degree that produces the > most societal benefit. Right now we're far too > skewed towards the benefit of the author or > inventor, as well as so short-sighted that we don't > see that it is going to harm the next generation > of creators as well.
I firmly agree. I read the linked article and went thru most of the slashdot discussion. I honestly didn't see any new insight nor any new potential solutions. Just that somebody figured out the obvious theoretical cost of an idea...
> Secondly, that that writings and inventions are > nonrivalrous. That is, if you have an invention, and I > use that invention, I do not preclude your use of it. > Whereas if you had a car, and I took the car, you > could not use that car at all while I had it.......
> At any rate, you're looking at this one-sidedly.
So are you. Once the invention is out copying can be done at a low cost or for free, whereas each copy of the car will cost money, fine. But you are neglecting the cost of the invention.
Coming up with the idea can easily cost the equivalent of 10 cars. So if you look from the viewpoint of the society, the society can be enpowered with an idea which will cost the equivalent of 10 cars. The fact that this idea can then be copied for free does not mean that by not burdening the cost, the idea will be produced on its own.
Current IP and copyright is an imperfect way for paying for the cost of the idea. Nevertheless a mechanism is needed to pay for new ideas. I think comments like "I do not preclude your use of it" are not really adding anything new to this issue. Ideas need to be paid for, plain and simple. Is the current system the best, no it is not. But your reasoning is hardly conducive for a better answer.
I remember an investigation of IBM and GE earnings about a year ago or so. Gestetner made a chunk of money for IBM through pensions but Jack is the real deal, at least as far as Business Week is concerned. Yes I am talking EPS here. If I hadn't thrown the stuff out I would have cited it for you.
I don't think there is any problem with accomplishing growth by buying out other profitable companies, btw.
> Similarly Jack Welch's performance does not look > that hot if you look at the growth in GE earnings > rather than the stock price - which is certain to > shrink as GE returns to its old P/E multiple.
Dude, Jack Welch's performance looks particularly hot when you look at GE's earnings growth. Steady double digit growth for twenty some years, no? What are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of nature does it v.s. we do it.
People are hesitant because it is new, and it is not clear that all genetically modified products are manufactured in "intelligently guided ways".
As more people learn about this stuff we will collectively know more, establish regulations, and you will be able to get your bloody fish from 7-11.
Pardonne
Thanks for the links. The assembly picture really :)
puts it in perspective. I now agree with the wow
> And of course, when you're in Milan, drop by the statue itself!
Most definitely will.
Thank you for the info.
Pardonne
All good points, mod it up please.
Nice writeup, certainly more interesting than Umberto's ramblings. The bronze horse you linked to doesn't look very interesting though. Why the WOW?
Pardonne
I think you are way out of line.
Disclosure: I don't have an SUV but I see idiots wasting time and money on stupid pieces of shit all the time.
One can extend your argument to a point where anything beyond a geo metro is overkill for the vast majority of the population. Life is variety, life is choice. And we are all thankful for that.
Why not root for rules and regulations that will stop artificial incentives on these vehicles and that will stop their mf'ing owners from parking at street corners? I think given the chance these things will self regulate. Trucks are not cars...
Pardonne
Patents do cover methods. That's academic though.
Think of all the other "methods" that could be infringing a given patent/method. With the way the companies are suing and courts deciding, these infringing "methods" easily start culminating into common concepts. In other words, anything remotely related can be (and typically is)
thought to be infringing.
Auctions over electronic media new? No, but ebay has a court decision that says they are infringing somebody's method and they have to pay up.
Pardonne
> cell phones nowadays come with some sort of pim
Most suck unbelievably though.
p800's are nice but look a little big.
Well, can't have it all, maybe I'll buy one.
Thank you very much for the info.
Pardonne
> which has been replaced by my cell phone a long time ago)
I am very curious, what is your cell phone?
Pardonne.
> He did nontrivial outside research in the ... ...
> field, much of it directed by the reference
> materials
> If patents are being given out like candy,
> why should I have to fight for mine?
That's why good patent lawyers never include any references in the filed patents.
Pardonne
> Study after study after study have shown
> this to be the ABSOLUTE truth.
You are not exaggerating a little bit Sherlock?
> when there aren't any cops around,
> I see a lot of people run red lights.
Another master criminologist with oh so refreshing theories about human behavior.
You are a friggin idiot, who gives a shit what you see.
Pardonne
I think the distinction between marketing and advertising (as you describe them) is much less pronounced these days. With revenues and jobs under pressure it is so much easier to assume everybody is your market. Who has time, patience and skills for a creful and costly market analysis.
Besides you have these overhormoned individuals who yell at folks to "BUY NOW!" "OWN IT!" etc. You hire a few of these apes and keep pushing crap out the door to folks that are not really the target market.
Oh, there is also this other group of marketing drones: They pretend that they are knowledgeable about the product, they say it will cure all problems, and when you ask how, they repeat.
Pardonne
I agree with your points and I also have a dumb question. Couldn't find a better place to post it really.
How come companies import goods into this country and pay import taxes in addition to corporate taxes? I mean why can't they say they just outsourced everything and just pay income taxes in the US, i.e., avoid the import taxes, duties, tariffs whatever.
The only thing you will get is pushy marketing, advertisements, and critical reviews by Joel Siegel (spelling ?).
Pardonne
Otherwise the conformist's yapping will go unchecked.
Mod parent up
> Um....if you live in hurricane/tornado/blizzard prone
> areas your view on that "wind-up radio" might change.
Dude, you heard of batteries?
Pardonne
I am way behind in my math. For a causal, stable system
shouldn't all the Poles be in the lhp?
Pardonne
As the amount of capital increases it becomes very
difficult to get a good interest rate on it. I doubt
you can get anything close to 5% in "low risk"
investments to 259 billion.
Depending on how "low risk" we are talking here,
5% may be a very good rate for any amount.
Pardonne
Good point about Wolfram's material. I didn't read the book but saw his talk. I think if you subscribe to what he is saying then the main advantage a super intelligence will have is that it will figure out which problems are simple and which ones are hard pretty quickly. In addition it may be able to find simple but maybe coarse approximations to complex problems. Beyond that it will just be modifying some constants in the time it takes to understand the galactic algorithm.
Pardonne
Thanks for the info. I will check these out. $4800 is not very cheap but I'll see about the 54 inch ones.
Contrast and hue issues are fine but you also need to factor in sharpness. Plasma looks better to me barring the units you have mentioned.
Pardonne
I am very curious. Just which rear projection TV
is mucho cheaper than plasma yet offers equivalent picture quality?
Rear projections are cheap true but I think you have an exaggerated notion of "equivalent".
Pardonne
> In part, I must disagree. I would say that only
> ideas worth paying for must be paid for.
Goes without saying, I had implicitly assumed this.
> I don't have serious problems with the current
> system in general, just in how it happens to
> presently be implemented. I feel that a better
> implementation is well within our grasp, if we
> simply focus on societal needs, and reduce
> protections to a degree that produces the
> most societal benefit. Right now we're far too
> skewed towards the benefit of the author or
> inventor, as well as so short-sighted that we don't
> see that it is going to harm the next generation
> of creators as well.
I firmly agree. I read the linked article and went thru most of the slashdot discussion. I honestly didn't see any new insight nor any new potential solutions. Just that somebody figured out the obvious theoretical cost of an idea...
Pardonne
> Secondly, that that writings and inventions are ... ...
> nonrivalrous. That is, if you have an invention, and I
> use that invention, I do not preclude your use of it.
> Whereas if you had a car, and I took the car, you
> could not use that car at all while I had it.
> At any rate, you're looking at this one-sidedly.
So are you. Once the invention is out copying can be done
at a low cost or for free, whereas each copy of the car will cost money, fine. But you are neglecting the cost of the invention.
Coming up with the idea can easily cost the equivalent of 10 cars. So if you look from the viewpoint of the society, the society can be enpowered with an idea which will cost the equivalent of 10 cars. The fact that this idea can then be copied for free does not mean that by not burdening the cost, the idea will be produced on its own.
Current IP and copyright is an imperfect way for paying for the cost of the idea. Nevertheless a mechanism is needed to pay for new ideas. I think comments like "I do not preclude your use of it" are not really adding anything new to this issue. Ideas need to be paid for, plain and simple. Is the current system the best, no it is not. But your reasoning is hardly conducive for a better answer.
Pardonne
I remember an investigation of IBM and GE earnings about a year ago or so. Gestetner made a chunk of money for IBM through pensions but Jack is the real deal, at least as far as Business Week is concerned. Yes I am talking EPS here. If I hadn't thrown the stuff out I would have cited it for you.
I don't think there is any problem with accomplishing growth by buying out other profitable companies, btw.
Pardonne
> Similarly Jack Welch's performance does not look
> that hot if you look at the growth in GE earnings
> rather than the stock price - which is certain to
> shrink as GE returns to its old P/E multiple.
Dude, Jack Welch's performance looks particularly hot
when you look at GE's earnings growth. Steady double digit growth for twenty some years, no?
What are you talking about?
Pardonne