Sorry, this is naive. The vast majority of people aren't helped to "rise above their economic class" because of welfare. If that's what they want to do, they'll do it on their own, welfare or not. The rest simply don't know how (and certainly aren't going to learn, by you handing them money) or aren't motivated to rise above their conditions.
It could be beneficial....but, if one personality finds itself helplessly dragged along by the other, a soap salesman who lives in an abandoned house and raises a skinhead army to overthrow world institutions.....then you'll know you've probably taken it too far.
You didn't have to. You were directly replying to a comment about design patents. And your comment was just plain wrong. In the context of design patents.
Fuck design patents. I was talking about innovation in general. You can't change the definition of a common word just because it's used in a slightly different context. No, "design patents" aren't a special enough category to get their own special use of the word "innovation", sorry.
Then go live in a country where most people feel that way.
Why, when the "first world" is already discovering what the rest of the world already knew? A patent system based on being able to patent shit like "a rectangle with rounded corners" just isn't sustainable. I mean Ugh back in -9298 BC had the same goddamn idea. Where's his cut?
I'm not claiming that our current system is particularly good; too many corporations and politicians have conspired over the years to mess it up.
Which is the same problem always encountered, without fail, in every situation when the government becomes involved in things it shouldn't be involved in.
You don't, for example, look at a badly designed or broken down car and conclude that all cars are therefore bad.
You're right, I don't. But I do look at government's continued misdeeds over the entire course of human history and reasonably conclude that the government should never be given control over deciding who owns what ideas.
But before you do, I'll let you in on a little secret: those countries don't innovate very much.
This is complete and utter nonsense which is easily disproven by looking at the history of other countries: Taiwan. Korea. Japan. United States. All of these countries were at one time young and growing countries who were "behind the curve" and copied from others. The Brits used to be world leaders in the textile industry; guess who quite literally copied and stole designs to their machinery and processes?
Should we today we be all pissed off and outraged for whichever poor person or corporation in the UK ended up having to sell off a couple vacation homes due to this occurrence back in the 1800s? Or should we instead be thankful for the rogue who snuck all this info out, and his co-conspirators who used the knowledge to enrich our own people's and country's livelihood?
Trying to "own" an idea is foolish and stupid. The whole purpose of our existence is to propagate and spread ideas.
The problem in China is different than ours. Their problem isn't a lack of patent system, it's extreme corruption. Westerners have opened businesses in China only to have the government come in after they got up and running, and nationalize the whole thing, or seize it and sell it at auction to a buddy. Who wants to innovate in a climate like that? In the U.S. they will (today) at least give the superficial appearance of legitimacy by dragging you through expensive (for you) court proceedings first.
Commercial aircraft are not some cheap thing to replace/fix like your car or house,
Exactly. Which is why the engineers, who were presumably aware of the effects of RF radiation back in the 70s, should have designed the planes properly. Did they, or did they not? Nobody can say because the argument you're making is based entirely on conjecture and fear, not facts.
The average age of aircraft in most fleets is 14 years old. The Airbus A320 was designed in the early to mid 1980's. The original Boeing 737 went into service in 1967. There were no mp3 players, cell phones, or WiFi devices then.
No, but there was lightning, handheld radios, and a hundred other things emitting RF radiation. We didn't invent the phenomena of RF interference in the past decade; it's been around for years. There is no evidence to assume that an mp3 player or cell phone is any worse of a potential interference hazard than any of the hazards the aircraft already experienced on a day to day basis. The same shielding that protects against an EM burst from a lightning strike absorbs that little bit radiation just as easily.
Is there a measurable increase in the percentage of crashes over the years where these little electronic devices have become ubiquitous? No? Well then I guess you're all worried about nothing.
Perhaps the fix is that you need to seek professional help if you find it so impossible to unplug for first and last 10 minutes of a flight.
I'm not included in the set of people who are heavy users of electronic devices. It's none of my damn business if some other person is, though. If some other person wants to act like a frightened little child, cowered up in a corner whimpering in fear of shadows, they can go right ahead; I don't allow such nonsense to impact my life, nor do other sane, rational individuals.
There are only 2 different types of programming languages: those everybody continuously bitch about (yet are forced to use anyway), and those nobody uses (for good reason).
FTFY
Maybe if we build a big enough AST tree out of these logical (yet empty and meaningless) statements, we will finally get down to the root of and understand why programming languages suck.
We are now at step 2 of 17,392 in this chain of reasoning.
A laughably ironic statement, considering that statistics is nothing more than a way of evaluating risk.....which comes from unknowns.
What's the "chances" of an apple falling upwards if I drop it?
The correct solution to airline safety is not dreaming up fantastical "OMG WHAT IF" scenarios based on our fears, and fill the world full of unnecessarily restrictive rules, but to figure out the unknowns and identify the actual problem(s) (IF any actually exist), then take specific measures to solve them.
Perhaps there are more planes and more personal electronic devices now than 100 years ago? Perhaps modern planes contain more electronic systems which may be subject to interference than older planes did?
What you do mean "perhaps"? Aren't the aircraft engineers supposed to know this kind of thing.....and plan for it?
What if the probability of interference is increased though? It's simple statistics, a 0.00001 chance of failure is unlikely to affect one particular aircraft, but given millions of flights, the probability of a failure occurring in any flight at all becomes likely.
If it's truly such a big risk, why aren't we taking real steps (i.e. aircraft redesign) to fix it?
If it's actually the infinitesimal-to-nonexistent risk that it is, then why waste people's time and alarm them unnecessarily?
I'm quite sure than a 6 point harness and cage would increase the safety of my automobile, but I'm also certain it's not worth the hassle/expense/weight in most situations.
Seems to me that this would have been of great interest to the whole aviation industry?
Yeah....if the aviation industry actually had reason to believe there is actual interference from such devices. But they don't. Their bullshit warnings are more fear-mongering than anything. It's a typical human thought pattern of doing some things "just in case", rather than getting to the root cause of things and being able to make an informed decision.
So what would you think if you were the B777 pilot who's radio communication with air traffic control was interrupted by a passenger's cell phone call? Or if you were the captain in command of a B747 that unexpectedly lost autopilot after takeoff and did not get it back until 4, count 'em four passengers turned off their portable electronic devices?
I'd think the aircraft manufacturers and airlines need to get their shit together and stop designing/using shit aircraft.
If it's such a goddamn problem, what's to stop a terrorist from replacing his laptop's internals with a transmitter 100x as strong?
Shielding critical electronics from EM interference, especially in a metal cabin where the interference can be ducted, controlled, and dissipated, is not exactly rocket science.
OK, morally then. Morally they can go fuck themselves. I'll continue using my smart phone/PDA/whatever because I choose to, there's no reason I shouldn't, and nobody's going to make me do otherwise.Try arguing your way out of that one.
Airlines have a responsibility to limit such liability.
Good for them. Doesn't compel any action on my part. I paid hundreds of dollars for this plane ticket. I'm a big boy, with strong hands. Sorry that weak ass people drop books, but it isn't a problem for me and I have no need of a nanny. I can hold mine just fine, thanks.
But are you really that inconvenienced to turn off your device for 5 minutes out of a 5-hour long flight that that it is that much of an issue?
Sounds like the guy back thousands of years ago who suggested against going outside the cave at night, because of possible unforseeable danger. "Why not just stay indoors where it's safe? Are you really that inconvenienced to only go out in the day, when it's clear light out and you can see what you're doing?"
That said, since some devices can and do cause interference, the default should be "don't allow",
No, the default should be fix the goddamn plane. An engineer somewhere needs to be slapped if a small device emitting a few hundred milliwatts can interfere with *anything*.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, this is naive. The vast majority of people aren't helped to "rise above their economic class" because of welfare. If that's what they want to do, they'll do it on their own, welfare or not. The rest simply don't know how (and certainly aren't going to learn, by you handing them money) or aren't motivated to rise above their conditions.
Sounds very familiar. I've tried explaining but even her presence can snap me out of 'the flow', which makes me way too irritable.
Meditation may benefit you greatly. It helps immensely with focus and concentration.
It could be beneficial....but, if one personality finds itself helplessly dragged along by the other, a soap salesman who lives in an abandoned house and raises a skinhead army to overthrow world institutions.....then you'll know you've probably taken it too far.
Better yet, be an entrepreneur and work from home. Then it doesn't HAVE to be "real quick."
Unless I got a lock on the door or a divorce, I don't know how I'd change that.
Grow a pair of balls, and put your foot down maybe?
(My apologies if your lower half was blown off in the war.)
Or better yet, skip all the hassle and just work under the table!
The government, like the MPAA, will find their sales improve when their services do.
Better luck next time bro.
You didn't have to. You were directly replying to a comment about design patents. And your comment was just plain wrong. In the context of design patents.
Fuck design patents. I was talking about innovation in general. You can't change the definition of a common word just because it's used in a slightly different context. No, "design patents" aren't a special enough category to get their own special use of the word "innovation", sorry.
Then go live in a country where most people feel that way.
Why, when the "first world" is already discovering what the rest of the world already knew? A patent system based on being able to patent shit like "a rectangle with rounded corners" just isn't sustainable. I mean Ugh back in -9298 BC had the same goddamn idea. Where's his cut?
I'm not claiming that our current system is particularly good; too many corporations and politicians have conspired over the years to mess it up.
Which is the same problem always encountered, without fail, in every situation when the government becomes involved in things it shouldn't be involved in.
You don't, for example, look at a badly designed or broken down car and conclude that all cars are therefore bad.
You're right, I don't. But I do look at government's continued misdeeds over the entire course of human history and reasonably conclude that the government should never be given control over deciding who owns what ideas.
But before you do, I'll let you in on a little secret: those countries don't innovate very much.
This is complete and utter nonsense which is easily disproven by looking at the history of other countries: Taiwan. Korea. Japan. United States. All of these countries were at one time young and growing countries who were "behind the curve" and copied from others. The Brits used to be world leaders in the textile industry; guess who quite literally copied and stole designs to their machinery and processes?
Should we today we be all pissed off and outraged for whichever poor person or corporation in the UK ended up having to sell off a couple vacation homes due to this occurrence back in the 1800s? Or should we instead be thankful for the rogue who snuck all this info out, and his co-conspirators who used the knowledge to enrich our own people's and country's livelihood?
Trying to "own" an idea is foolish and stupid. The whole purpose of our existence is to propagate and spread ideas.
The problem in China is different than ours. Their problem isn't a lack of patent system, it's extreme corruption. Westerners have opened businesses in China only to have the government come in after they got up and running, and nationalize the whole thing, or seize it and sell it at auction to a buddy. Who wants to innovate in a climate like that? In the U.S. they will (today) at least give the superficial appearance of legitimacy by dragging you through expensive (for you) court proceedings first.
Commercial aircraft are not some cheap thing to replace/fix like your car or house,
Exactly. Which is why the engineers, who were presumably aware of the effects of RF radiation back in the 70s, should have designed the planes properly. Did they, or did they not? Nobody can say because the argument you're making is based entirely on conjecture and fear, not facts.
The average age of aircraft in most fleets is 14 years old. The Airbus A320 was designed in the early to mid 1980's. The original Boeing 737 went into service in 1967. There were no mp3 players, cell phones, or WiFi devices then.
No, but there was lightning, handheld radios, and a hundred other things emitting RF radiation. We didn't invent the phenomena of RF interference in the past decade; it's been around for years. There is no evidence to assume that an mp3 player or cell phone is any worse of a potential interference hazard than any of the hazards the aircraft already experienced on a day to day basis. The same shielding that protects against an EM burst from a lightning strike absorbs that little bit radiation just as easily.
Is there a measurable increase in the percentage of crashes over the years where these little electronic devices have become ubiquitous? No? Well then I guess you're all worried about nothing.
Perhaps the fix is that you need to seek professional help if you find it so impossible to unplug for first and last 10 minutes of a flight.
I'm not included in the set of people who are heavy users of electronic devices. It's none of my damn business if some other person is, though. If some other person wants to act like a frightened little child, cowered up in a corner whimpering in fear of shadows, they can go right ahead; I don't allow such nonsense to impact my life, nor do other sane, rational individuals.
Also, no one seems to understand the actual nature of RF signals.
Except me--a satellite communications engineer.
I repeat: Fix the fucking plane.
This is +1, Normal? Come on. This is a worthless comment, a waste of space.
There are only 2 different types of programming languages: those everybody continuously bitch about (yet are forced to use anyway), and those nobody uses (for good reason).
FTFY
Maybe if we build a big enough AST tree out of these logical (yet empty and meaningless) statements, we will finally get down to the root of and understand why programming languages suck.
We are now at step 2 of 17,392 in this chain of reasoning.
Your move.
Yeah, that's a checkmate.
I keep coming back to it, because often there is no better alternative.
This sums it up.
I tried that, but it broke PulseAudio.
You really don't understand statistics, do you?
A laughably ironic statement, considering that statistics is nothing more than a way of evaluating risk.....which comes from unknowns.
What's the "chances" of an apple falling upwards if I drop it?
The correct solution to airline safety is not dreaming up fantastical "OMG WHAT IF" scenarios based on our fears, and fill the world full of unnecessarily restrictive rules, but to figure out the unknowns and identify the actual problem(s) (IF any actually exist), then take specific measures to solve them.
Perhaps there are more planes and more personal electronic devices now than 100 years ago? Perhaps modern planes contain more electronic systems which may be subject to interference than older planes did?
What you do mean "perhaps"? Aren't the aircraft engineers supposed to know this kind of thing.....and plan for it?
What if the probability of interference is increased though? It's simple statistics, a 0.00001 chance of failure is unlikely to affect one particular aircraft, but given millions of flights, the probability of a failure occurring in any flight at all becomes likely.
If it's truly such a big risk, why aren't we taking real steps (i.e. aircraft redesign) to fix it?
If it's actually the infinitesimal-to-nonexistent risk that it is, then why waste people's time and alarm them unnecessarily?
I'm quite sure than a 6 point harness and cage would increase the safety of my automobile, but I'm also certain it's not worth the hassle/expense/weight in most situations.
Seems to me that this would have been of great interest to the whole aviation industry?
Yeah....if the aviation industry actually had reason to believe there is actual interference from such devices. But they don't. Their bullshit warnings are more fear-mongering than anything. It's a typical human thought pattern of doing some things "just in case", rather than getting to the root cause of things and being able to make an informed decision.
So what would you think if you were the B777 pilot who's radio communication with air traffic control was interrupted by a passenger's cell phone call? Or if you were the captain in command of a B747 that unexpectedly lost autopilot after takeoff and did not get it back until 4, count 'em four passengers turned off their portable electronic devices?
I'd think the aircraft manufacturers and airlines need to get their shit together and stop designing/using shit aircraft.
If it's such a goddamn problem, what's to stop a terrorist from replacing his laptop's internals with a transmitter 100x as strong?
Shielding critical electronics from EM interference, especially in a metal cabin where the interference can be ducted, controlled, and dissipated, is not exactly rocket science.
OK, morally then. Morally they can go fuck themselves. I'll continue using my smart phone/PDA/whatever because I choose to, there's no reason I shouldn't, and nobody's going to make me do otherwise.Try arguing your way out of that one.
Airlines have a responsibility to limit such liability.
Good for them. Doesn't compel any action on my part. I paid hundreds of dollars for this plane ticket. I'm a big boy, with strong hands. Sorry that weak ass people drop books, but it isn't a problem for me and I have no need of a nanny. I can hold mine just fine, thanks.
But are you really that inconvenienced to turn off your device for 5 minutes out of a 5-hour long flight that that it is that much of an issue?
Sounds like the guy back thousands of years ago who suggested against going outside the cave at night, because of possible unforseeable danger. "Why not just stay indoors where it's safe? Are you really that inconvenienced to only go out in the day, when it's clear light out and you can see what you're doing?"
You have to realize that most aircraft in service have been in service for decades.
RF interference didn't exist back in the 70s?
That said, since some devices can and do cause interference, the default should be "don't allow",
No, the default should be fix the goddamn plane. An engineer somewhere needs to be slapped if a small device emitting a few hundred milliwatts can interfere with *anything*.
do you really want be trying to get to an exit with everyone between you and that door trying to put a laptop away?
Yes, because I'll get there a lot faster if I'm climbing while everyone else is busy putting away laptops.