do hate Bush, Cheney and the rest of his gang.... That shows how immature the average American voter is.... Not manipulated information from Fox News.
See what I said above. Hatred and prejudice tend to lead a person away from facts and reason.
Wait until one year when a dozen category 5 hurricanes make a really serious damage on the South Eastern US coast.
They promised this after hurricane Katrina. That was 5 years ago. It didn't happen. It has been calm. How many wrong predictions does it take to lead a reasonable person to doubt?
What's the long term record for doomsday predictions anyway? How many hundreds or thousands of supposedly enlightened men have made doomsday predictions? And when were they right? When was doomsday? Did I miss it?
Mayan calendar doomsday is next year, BTW.
Al Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic within 10 years. That was 7 years ago. What will you say when he turns out to be wrong?
... Unfortunately people aren't smart enough to demand long term smart decisions from their politics, the 60% poorer population in the US and in Brazil are both relatively stupid....
3 - You probably don't see that the dictatorships in Egypt, Iran and many others were a direct result of the US war on communism and their plan for world domination. The current Iranian theocracy was a direct result of keeping a tyrant king in power in Iran. Same for Egypt. The current president of Afghanistan is a pawn of the energy interests of America.
The truth is ugly.
But you don't hate the US. You just have nothing good to say about it and a dozen complaints going back 40-60 years. And we're stupid in the US.
I, and many other citizens of the US (and a growing number of people around the world), disagree that the earth is in danger of being destroyed by normal people trying to live their lives.
We are also skeptical of US-haters in general. Hate and prejudice tends to alienate people from reason and fact.
The cheapest and most obvious alternative to mideast oil is domestic oil. We have lots of it. It's being produced in North Dakota in increasing quantities. It's available under the Alaskan wasteland. It pollutes the Santa Barbara beaches from natural oil seeps -- pollution that would be prevented by oil drilling. And it's available in vast quantities in the Gulf of Mexico.
And in Canada, the oil from tar sands will be available to use in mass quantities. But environmentalists are trying to prevent the construction of a midwest oil pipeline to bring the oil from the oil fields to the people who would use it.
There are also vast new natural gas reserves available.
If people want to invest in "clean" energy, they're welcome to do that. But "clean" energy shouldn't be the only energy. We need affordable energy to escape the recession.
We need clean energy jobs and also traditional energy jobs. And every other kind of jobs.
When you have knocked down the last skyscraper, and destroyed the last lightbulb... only then will you realize that shivering in a cold, dark cave, really, rally sucks.
They aren't worried about that. Because they'll be flying the private jet to environmental conferences in destination cities around the world. They'll be in posh offices overseeing carbon credit trading. They'll be planning their next wilderness rafting vacation. They'll be speeding past on the highway, professionally driven in black government SUVs with tinted windows, on their way to an awards banquet for an innovative new tech company that found a new way to generate $1 worth of energy for $8 instead of $10.
So you're saying zero revenue from iPhone users is better than 70% of the revenue from iPhone users? Or do you somehow think that iPhone users will be buying their Apps from the Android Market? Or do you think that every iPhone user will switch to Android to get access to one or two subscription services that are mad at Apple?
Or is this just a fanboy comment and we shouldn't think about it (because thinking ruins the essential experience)?
if you dont think that studying middle ages history is 'the best use of talent', then do NOT comment on arguments that say a particular incident now, has been exactly repeated in history, because YOU DONT KNOW history.
This argument is ridiculous. No one "knows history". All we know is what people wrote down. And even the people alive at the time, experiencing the events, were only experiencing some of them.
You've written a string of progressively sillier posts about this. Humility is the key virtue that helps someone to avoid doing something like that.
BTW: Don't support your initial argument with facts and evidence or anything. Simply attack the guy who questions it. That's what a knowledgeable scholar would do. Facts, schmacts. You've got credentials!
Because studying middle ages history is the world's best use of time and talent?
During the middle ages, some folks studied history and thought themselves wise and looked down on others would hadn't studied the same history. They considered themselves to be above their fellow countrymen and therefore worthy of ruling over the populous.
It's exactly the same attitude that many so-called elites have today, with academic credentials in the place of titles of nobility.
FWIW: Environmental laws often do harm the environment in many ways. Most recently and obviously, they create incentives for producers to shut down relatively clean, efficient factories and other operations in the US and then replace those operations with polluting facilities in China and elsewhere.
And racial preference laws definitely lead to race-based conflict. Any non-race-neutral law, regulation, or policy does.
It's easy to draw vague parallels between any two broadly-defined historic periods of time to allude to any particular connection you want. It's silly to take such connections seriously without a great deal of very specific supporting evidence.
If you meet a man, and that man reminds you of an old friend, it doesn't follow that he is definitely your old friend's brother.
So you're saying that the guy who was equally qualified and lost out because his skin color wasn't "diverse" is, on average, less innovative than the fellow with the "diverse" skin color? Can you prove that, or is it just your particular prejudice?
Secondly, even those who aren't may say that innovation is only one factor and that the benefit of those regulations outweigh that factor, while the benefits of IP laws don't.
I don't see anyone saying that. I see favoring innovation today at the expense of IP today and blocking innovation tomorrow because XYZ issue is my issue and innovation is only good when it's at someone else's expense, never when it challenges my favored position.
Why is it OK to block innovation and commerce with environmental laws, racial preference laws, licensing laws, union preference laws, unreasonable liability laws, international trade laws, and thousands upon thousands of regulations? But somehow it's not OK to block the same innovation with IP laws?
I wonder if people really want innovation or if this is just a way to justify taking IP from the people who create(d) it.
And people in other countries don't need to buy food? Shareholders don't need to buy food or save to pay their expenses (food again) after they retire? Lawnmower engine customers don't need to buy food? Mechanical engineers doing factory automation don't need to buy food?
You can either produce a product with 20 hours of labor or 2 hours. If you pick 2 hours, you can make them ten times as fast. Each person who was barely pulling his own weight before can now do 10x as much. Wealth was created.
Together, these small improvements are the difference between a modern 21st century lifestyle and a 17th century subsistence farming lifestyle. Which one is better?
Troll. Loaded language: "true believers". You should try not being an ass for a while.
Feel free to get in the last word.
It's not a troll. I've expressed a fairly clear preference for practical merit over ideological purity. Where's the argument that isn't the choice here? Where's the argument that the tradeoff is worth it?
I apologize for the tone. Can you address the substance now?
Regardless though, it's a very very poor argument. If there are current costs to be paid for future benefits, the future benefits shouldn't be purely a fantasy.
There's a lot longer and more extensive precedent for patent terms staying about 20 years than there is for them changing.
So all your posts on Slashdot are always in the imaginary context of a "job interview for a bizdev or related position"? That's strange, even for the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
do hate Bush, Cheney and the rest of his gang. ... That shows how immature the average American voter is. ... Not manipulated information from Fox News.
See what I said above. Hatred and prejudice tend to lead a person away from facts and reason.
Wait until one year when a dozen category 5 hurricanes make a really serious damage on the South Eastern US coast.
They promised this after hurricane Katrina. That was 5 years ago. It didn't happen. It has been calm. How many wrong predictions does it take to lead a reasonable person to doubt?
What's the long term record for doomsday predictions anyway? How many hundreds or thousands of supposedly enlightened men have made doomsday predictions? And when were they right? When was doomsday? Did I miss it?
Mayan calendar doomsday is next year, BTW.
Al Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic within 10 years. That was 7 years ago. What will you say when he turns out to be wrong?
Unfortunately people aren't smart enough to demand long term smart decisions from their politics, the 60% poorer population in the US and in Brazil are both relatively stupid.
3 - You probably don't see that the dictatorships in Egypt, Iran and many others were a direct result of the US war on communism and their plan for world domination. The current Iranian theocracy was a direct result of keeping a tyrant king in power in Iran. Same for Egypt. The current president of Afghanistan is a pawn of the energy interests of America.
The truth is ugly.
But you don't hate the US. You just have nothing good to say about it and a dozen complaints going back 40-60 years. And we're stupid in the US.
I, and many other citizens of the US (and a growing number of people around the world), disagree that the earth is in danger of being destroyed by normal people trying to live their lives.
We are also skeptical of US-haters in general. Hate and prejudice tends to alienate people from reason and fact.
There isn't constant "growth of demand". It varies. Sometimes it grows, sometimes it shrinks. And no one said "plenty" except for you.
The US needs to rethink its long commute way of living.
What if we simply decline your suggestion? We choose to live the way we choose.
Should any culture be allowed to live according to their choice? Or is it just the US that isn't allowed to choose our own way of life?
The cheapest and most obvious alternative to mideast oil is domestic oil. We have lots of it. It's being produced in North Dakota in increasing quantities. It's available under the Alaskan wasteland. It pollutes the Santa Barbara beaches from natural oil seeps -- pollution that would be prevented by oil drilling. And it's available in vast quantities in the Gulf of Mexico.
And in Canada, the oil from tar sands will be available to use in mass quantities. But environmentalists are trying to prevent the construction of a midwest oil pipeline to bring the oil from the oil fields to the people who would use it.
There are also vast new natural gas reserves available.
If people want to invest in "clean" energy, they're welcome to do that. But "clean" energy shouldn't be the only energy. We need affordable energy to escape the recession.
We need clean energy jobs and also traditional energy jobs. And every other kind of jobs.
When you have knocked down the last skyscraper, and destroyed the last lightbulb ... only then will you realize that shivering in a cold, dark cave, really, rally sucks.
They aren't worried about that. Because they'll be flying the private jet to environmental conferences in destination cities around the world. They'll be in posh offices overseeing carbon credit trading. They'll be planning their next wilderness rafting vacation. They'll be speeding past on the highway, professionally driven in black government SUVs with tinted windows, on their way to an awards banquet for an innovative new tech company that found a new way to generate $1 worth of energy for $8 instead of $10.
Shivering in the dark is their plan for you.
Please use your free speech rights and leave it in the comments here. Thanks.
So those companies will have to negotiate with Apple for alternate terms then.
If Apple can have a reseller like Amazon Kindle giving them a 15% cut rather than zero, that's good for Apple.
The policy is new. There's no evidence it's a one size fits all policy with no exceptions yet.
So you're saying zero revenue from iPhone users is better than 70% of the revenue from iPhone users? Or do you somehow think that iPhone users will be buying their Apps from the Android Market? Or do you think that every iPhone user will switch to Android to get access to one or two subscription services that are mad at Apple?
Or is this just a fanboy comment and we shouldn't think about it (because thinking ruins the essential experience)?
if you dont think that studying middle ages history is 'the best use of talent', then do NOT comment on arguments that say a particular incident now, has been exactly repeated in history, because YOU DONT KNOW history.
This argument is ridiculous. No one "knows history". All we know is what people wrote down. And even the people alive at the time, experiencing the events, were only experiencing some of them.
You've written a string of progressively sillier posts about this. Humility is the key virtue that helps someone to avoid doing something like that.
BTW: Don't support your initial argument with facts and evidence or anything. Simply attack the guy who questions it. That's what a knowledgeable scholar would do. Facts, schmacts. You've got credentials!
Because studying middle ages history is the world's best use of time and talent?
During the middle ages, some folks studied history and thought themselves wise and looked down on others would hadn't studied the same history. They considered themselves to be above their fellow countrymen and therefore worthy of ruling over the populous.
It's exactly the same attitude that many so-called elites have today, with academic credentials in the place of titles of nobility.
That's a good point.
FWIW: Environmental laws often do harm the environment in many ways. Most recently and obviously, they create incentives for producers to shut down relatively clean, efficient factories and other operations in the US and then replace those operations with polluting facilities in China and elsewhere.
And racial preference laws definitely lead to race-based conflict. Any non-race-neutral law, regulation, or policy does.
If you meet a man, and that man reminds you of an old friend, it doesn't follow that he is definitely your old friend's brother.
So you're saying that the guy who was equally qualified and lost out because his skin color wasn't "diverse" is, on average, less innovative than the fellow with the "diverse" skin color? Can you prove that, or is it just your particular prejudice?
Firstly, many people are against all those
Zero Slashdot editors are against all of those.
Secondly, even those who aren't may say that innovation is only one factor and that the benefit of those regulations outweigh that factor, while the benefits of IP laws don't.
I don't see anyone saying that. I see favoring innovation today at the expense of IP today and blocking innovation tomorrow because XYZ issue is my issue and innovation is only good when it's at someone else's expense, never when it challenges my favored position.
Why is it OK to block innovation and commerce with environmental laws, racial preference laws, licensing laws, union preference laws, unreasonable liability laws, international trade laws, and thousands upon thousands of regulations? But somehow it's not OK to block the same innovation with IP laws?
I wonder if people really want innovation or if this is just a way to justify taking IP from the people who create(d) it.
Which arguments do you want to censor?
Skepticism is pro-science. Censorship is anti-science.
Open-minded inquiry is pro-science. Orthodoxy is anti-science.
Yet here on Slashdot, the calls are to censor teachers who question the orthodoxy and they call it pro-science.
I see. All of the advances in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are "a blip".
Automation should make it easier to feed everybody. Except that's not how it worked out, is it?
Yes. We've gone from having periodic famines to an having an obesity epidemic. Haven't you been paying attention?
We have rising standards of living around the world. That is how it worked out.
And people in other countries don't need to buy food? Shareholders don't need to buy food or save to pay their expenses (food again) after they retire? Lawnmower engine customers don't need to buy food? Mechanical engineers doing factory automation don't need to buy food?
You can either produce a product with 20 hours of labor or 2 hours. If you pick 2 hours, you can make them ten times as fast. Each person who was barely pulling his own weight before can now do 10x as much. Wealth was created.
Together, these small improvements are the difference between a modern 21st century lifestyle and a 17th century subsistence farming lifestyle. Which one is better?
They just announced their plans publicly. That's not good enough?
Troll. Loaded language: "true believers". You should try not being an ass for a while.
Feel free to get in the last word.
It's not a troll. I've expressed a fairly clear preference for practical merit over ideological purity. Where's the argument that isn't the choice here? Where's the argument that the tradeoff is worth it?
I apologize for the tone. Can you address the substance now?
There's precedent for retroactive taxes.
Regardless though, it's a very very poor argument. If there are current costs to be paid for future benefits, the future benefits shouldn't be purely a fantasy.
There's a lot longer and more extensive precedent for patent terms staying about 20 years than there is for them changing.
So all your posts on Slashdot are always in the imaginary context of a "job interview for a bizdev or related position"? That's strange, even for the internet.