If they're not asking for permission to make the product, they're sure as hell not going to ask for permission to sell it. You don't just slap a Sorny store up in the middle of town and go about your business. The whole point of making knockoffs is to either compete on price through illicit channels (i.e., sidewalk or back alley stores), or to introduce the product to a legitimate marketplace via illicit means (i.e. substituting a counterfeit in an order for a legitimate product).
Not just patent infringement but blatant theft of IP.
I hate it when people steal my IP. I'm all like "Here's a good idea.." and then they just reach into my brain and TAKE it, and then it's gone. I can't even remember it anymore, because they stole it. Hell, for all I know, all the products lining the store shelves were *my* ideas.
Or did you mean "not just patent infringement, but blatant, wanton, bad faith patent infringement? Either way, I'm suing the fuck out of whoever steals my next idea. What were we talking about again?
Contrary to what the poster above says, CFLs generally emit a broad spectrum of light, and in most cases it's actually broader than incandescents. That said, not all CFLs are created equal, so it's possible you picked a poor model. A comparison is available here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/how_to/4215199.html?nav=hpPrint&do=print
In any event, a CFL certainly DOES NOT use more energy, so if you think they do based on some past experience, then your test methodology was flawed. Plug your lamp into a wattmeter and try again. If your generator was using more fuel, then something else was on.
Taleb's solution is to constantly buy options and ignore stocks proper. Eventually something unpredictable WILL happen, and you'll profit whether it goes up or down. The only problem, for the common man, is that it's impossible to beat expenses. $10,000 won't go very far buying options month after month, even with flat fees. A fund could be setup to lower expenses, and such funds do exist, but unfortunately they're legally prohibited from a) marketing to the general public, b) accepting more than 100 investors, and c) accepting any individual with less than $1M net worth, or $200k/yr income.
Yes. I believe it also has wheels, as current in the stone age on all those carts. Just because a technology is old doesn't mean it's bad, or that it hasn't improved.
there is evidence that shows that the necline of Napster directly contributed to the decline in CD sales
Correlation != causation. The decline of Napster could have coincided with increased public awareness of MP3s and file sharing, and the rise in alternative services like Kazaa.
Doesn't look like anything special.. just an automated ambulance-chasing service. They get 50% of the price of the ticket by filing some forms to contest it. There must be a low conviction rate for parking tickets (or people who fight them), and they're just taking advantage of that fact. To top it all off, they get all of your personal information, including the make, model, and plate numbers of your vehicle. I'm not sure whether an attorney-client relationship would exist in this scenario, but even if it did, they could probably resell anonymized information.
The Corvette is actually one of the best values in the sports car market, and the hand made Z6 outperforms many of its competitors in ANY price range, let alone the sub-$100k bracket. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only one. It's not like you can actually use a sports car/sedan to its full potential on any public roads in the US, so there's not quite the market here as there is elsewhere.
It's really only the cellphone market that enjoys such a disparity. Computers, digital cameras, and other technology is virtually international, even in price/performance. Akhiabara and Hong Kong have a LOT of shit, but really nothing more, and at no better prices than, what you could find in NY or LA, let alone online. Sure, there's probably more knockoff electronics, and they're probably easier to obtain in Asia, but there's no better *quality*, and definitely not better quality at lower prices. Except for mobile phones.
When you consider that, you (or I, at least) have to wonder if there's not some serious market manipulation going on in the west to prevent Asian competitors from gaining ground in the mobile market.
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Selecting unimportant characteristics like height, sex, eye-colour etc. is of no benefit and carries a potential of reduced diversification.
It's like you didn't read my post at all.
1) Reduced diversification is only a liability when you *don't know what's going to happen*. We are intelligent, and we know with a large amount of certainty what will and will not happen to our environment. We know that the sun is not going to go dark tomorrow and render our eyesight useless. We know that the events likely to lead to our extinction in the next few thousand years are almost exclusively astronomical collisions, or some sort of superbug. In either case, it is almost certainly our brains and our behavior that will save us (if anything does), and not our genetics. Bunkers, quarantines, masks, drugs, etc.. all of these are products of the brain, not the genes.
2) All of that said, we *will not* lose diversification, because:
a) All people will not make the same choices for their offspring.
b) Genes will continue to mutate.
c) People are more than the sum of their genes. Physical characteristics are not 100% defined by genetics, but by a mixture of genetics and environment.
So we're never going to achieve a 100% success rate, which means that even if we somehow managed to regulate the reproduction of 6 billion people, we would still have diversity. What we ARE doing is becoming better at achieving reproductive success for ourselves and our offspring, which is something we've been doing for.. well, forever. It doesn't really matter if we do it through fake contact lenses and plastic surgery, or whether we do it by not having babies with hooves.
Prettysure, yes. With the exception of Helen of Troy in history, and maybe Angelina Jolie today, very few noteworthy figures are so simply because of their beauty, or lack thereof.
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
The species survived an otherwise catastrophic environmental change *by chance*, not because evolution had some sort of supernatural foresight. There are plenty of species which evolved traits which were completely unsuitable for survival. See: All extinct species and, by extension, most existing ones.
This story mostly speaks to diversification as a strategy for survival, and diversification as a species will not be lost simply because a few people decide to filter out potential children with down syndrome. There are two reasons for this: 1) Mating itself creates diversity, and that can't be filtered out. 2) Genes mutate over a lifetime -- you don't have the exact same genes today that you had when you were born. For better or for worse, we are stuck with diversification in the foreseeable future.
Finally, it makes sense to wager more heavily on traits that will enhance survivability in the existing or predicted environment. We do this already when choosing a mate. The only thing this company is doing is increasing the precision of those choices.
Oh yeah.. I'm sure those Chinese factory workers will be lining up for the $100,000 genetic screening. I'm sure it's way up there on their list, right after getting a Benz and taking a nice Vegas vacation in the Bellagio penthouse.
Can you hear Darwin howling?
Uh, no? He's dead, which technically means he can't make noise, but even if he were not, I never heard him make a stink about selective breeding. In fact, the first chapter of his book, Origin of the Species, is about the success of selective breeding. He'd probably be quite pleased that the procedure has advanced to the point where we can select actual genes instead of just selecting based on appearance. Not that it really matters what he might think, because he was just a biologist, not a deity.
I see nothing wrong with couples screening their potential offspring for genetic diseases, or any frivolous trait they care to impart in the process. There's certainly nothing more narcissistic about screening than there is about thinking the world will be better off with your offspring in it to begin with. People already have babies until they get one they "want," e.g. male or female.. this just makes the process more efficient. And let's be honest: do we really need more "special needs" children in the world? Wouldn't the best solution be to not have them in the first place? Or is an ounce of prevention only worth a pound of cure as it applies to adults?
What he's saying isn't far fetched, it's just not well thought out. Why would I want a miniature version of my word processor or video editor open on my phone? I don't want a "session" that follows me around everywhere I go. I want my work computer to be my work computer, my phone to be my phone, and my laptop to be my laptop. I want a bike OR a motorcycle, not a bloody moped.
Granted, for people who do a small set of things (e-mail, web browsing, and IM) the "session" paradigm is fine. But those people are already well served by existing devices, especially for email and IM. There are already online bookmarking services, so you can bookmark a page from one browser and open it from another. No, the crazy talk about using "sessions" that they were typing into the post box of Slashdot won't follow them when they have to suddenly go to the store to get some more crazy pills, but is the solution to that really a portable session for *everything*? It would be easy enough for websites to implement a GMail-like procedure of autosaving drafts.
For everyone else.. "I want my terminal windows and browser to follow me, but not gimp or my VM. Unless I have a bank or intranet webpage open, then I don't want those pages to follow me, but I don't want to lose them when I bring my session "back" to the desktop either. I want documents and pictures to transfer automatically, unless they were pictures of my boyfriend plowing me or documents that are confidential." Do you blacklist apps and whitelist data? What apps should be processed locally, and which should just be displayed locally? By the time you get done sorting out all the exceptions, you're basically back to the existing model: software is local, and data is portable. The "session paradigm" is just doing it the hard way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Li-ion batteries essentially breathe fire. The Li-ger batteries, otoh, only belch fire, and the Ti-ger batteries have barely flammable farts.
If they're not asking for permission to make the product, they're sure as hell not going to ask for permission to sell it. You don't just slap a Sorny store up in the middle of town and go about your business. The whole point of making knockoffs is to either compete on price through illicit channels (i.e., sidewalk or back alley stores), or to introduce the product to a legitimate marketplace via illicit means (i.e. substituting a counterfeit in an order for a legitimate product).
Great New Association Acronym. Too bad they'll get sued by the Patent Infringement Troll Association.
BTW, New Acronyms Make Baby Lesus Angry.
Not just patent infringement but blatant theft of IP.
I hate it when people steal my IP. I'm all like "Here's a good idea.." and then they just reach into my brain and TAKE it, and then it's gone. I can't even remember it anymore, because they stole it. Hell, for all I know, all the products lining the store shelves were *my* ideas.
Or did you mean "not just patent infringement, but blatant, wanton, bad faith patent infringement? Either way, I'm suing the fuck out of whoever steals my next idea. What were we talking about again?
If enough of them try long enough, then eventually..
Contrary to what the poster above says, CFLs generally emit a broad spectrum of light, and in most cases it's actually broader than incandescents. That said, not all CFLs are created equal, so it's possible you picked a poor model. A comparison is available here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/how_to/4215199.html?nav=hpPrint&do=print
In any event, a CFL certainly DOES NOT use more energy, so if you think they do based on some past experience, then your test methodology was flawed. Plug your lamp into a wattmeter and try again. If your generator was using more fuel, then something else was on.
Only people on juries are those too stupid to get out of jury duty (or actually want to do it ... as in do gooders anxious to lock you away).
Yeah, fulfilling your civic responsibility by serving on a jury is soooo stupid!! Stupid stupidheads!
Taleb's solution is to constantly buy options and ignore stocks proper. Eventually something unpredictable WILL happen, and you'll profit whether it goes up or down. The only problem, for the common man, is that it's impossible to beat expenses. $10,000 won't go very far buying options month after month, even with flat fees. A fund could be setup to lower expenses, and such funds do exist, but unfortunately they're legally prohibited from a) marketing to the general public, b) accepting more than 100 investors, and c) accepting any individual with less than $1M net worth, or $200k/yr income.
Yes. I believe it also has wheels, as current in the stone age on all those carts. Just because a technology is old doesn't mean it's bad, or that it hasn't improved.
there is evidence that shows that the necline of Napster directly contributed to the decline in CD sales
Correlation != causation. The decline of Napster could have coincided with increased public awareness of MP3s and file sharing, and the rise in alternative services like Kazaa.
Doesn't look like anything special.. just an automated ambulance-chasing service. They get 50% of the price of the ticket by filing some forms to contest it. There must be a low conviction rate for parking tickets (or people who fight them), and they're just taking advantage of that fact. To top it all off, they get all of your personal information, including the make, model, and plate numbers of your vehicle. I'm not sure whether an attorney-client relationship would exist in this scenario, but even if it did, they could probably resell anonymized information.
The Corvette is actually one of the best values in the sports car market, and the hand made Z6 outperforms many of its competitors in ANY price range, let alone the sub-$100k bracket. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only one. It's not like you can actually use a sports car/sedan to its full potential on any public roads in the US, so there's not quite the market here as there is elsewhere.
It's really only the cellphone market that enjoys such a disparity. Computers, digital cameras, and other technology is virtually international, even in price/performance. Akhiabara and Hong Kong have a LOT of shit, but really nothing more, and at no better prices than, what you could find in NY or LA, let alone online. Sure, there's probably more knockoff electronics, and they're probably easier to obtain in Asia, but there's no better *quality*, and definitely not better quality at lower prices. Except for mobile phones.
When you consider that, you (or I, at least) have to wonder if there's not some serious market manipulation going on in the west to prevent Asian competitors from gaining ground in the mobile market.
Selecting unimportant characteristics like height, sex, eye-colour etc. is of no benefit and carries a potential of reduced diversification.
It's like you didn't read my post at all.
1) Reduced diversification is only a liability when you *don't know what's going to happen*. We are intelligent, and we know with a large amount of certainty what will and will not happen to our environment. We know that the sun is not going to go dark tomorrow and render our eyesight useless. We know that the events likely to lead to our extinction in the next few thousand years are almost exclusively astronomical collisions, or some sort of superbug. In either case, it is almost certainly our brains and our behavior that will save us (if anything does), and not our genetics. Bunkers, quarantines, masks, drugs, etc.. all of these are products of the brain, not the genes.
2) All of that said, we *will not* lose diversification, because:
a) All people will not make the same choices for their offspring.
b) Genes will continue to mutate.
c) People are more than the sum of their genes. Physical characteristics are not 100% defined by genetics, but by a mixture of genetics and environment.
So we're never going to achieve a 100% success rate, which means that even if we somehow managed to regulate the reproduction of 6 billion people, we would still have diversity. What we ARE doing is becoming better at achieving reproductive success for ourselves and our offspring, which is something we've been doing for.. well, forever. It doesn't really matter if we do it through fake contact lenses and plastic surgery, or whether we do it by not having babies with hooves.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Pretty sure, yes. With the exception of Helen of Troy in history, and maybe Angelina Jolie today, very few noteworthy figures are so simply because of their beauty, or lack thereof.
The species survived an otherwise catastrophic environmental change *by chance*, not because evolution had some sort of supernatural foresight. There are plenty of species which evolved traits which were completely unsuitable for survival. See: All extinct species and, by extension, most existing ones.
This story mostly speaks to diversification as a strategy for survival, and diversification as a species will not be lost simply because a few people decide to filter out potential children with down syndrome. There are two reasons for this: 1) Mating itself creates diversity, and that can't be filtered out. 2) Genes mutate over a lifetime -- you don't have the exact same genes today that you had when you were born. For better or for worse, we are stuck with diversification in the foreseeable future.
Finally, it makes sense to wager more heavily on traits that will enhance survivability in the existing or predicted environment. We do this already when choosing a mate. The only thing this company is doing is increasing the precision of those choices.
Forget the kids.. where are my wings and eye lasers?!?
Oh yeah.. I'm sure those Chinese factory workers will be lining up for the $100,000 genetic screening. I'm sure it's way up there on their list, right after getting a Benz and taking a nice Vegas vacation in the Bellagio penthouse.
Can you hear Darwin howling?
Uh, no? He's dead, which technically means he can't make noise, but even if he were not, I never heard him make a stink about selective breeding. In fact, the first chapter of his book, Origin of the Species, is about the success of selective breeding. He'd probably be quite pleased that the procedure has advanced to the point where we can select actual genes instead of just selecting based on appearance. Not that it really matters what he might think, because he was just a biologist, not a deity.
I see nothing wrong with couples screening their potential offspring for genetic diseases, or any frivolous trait they care to impart in the process. There's certainly nothing more narcissistic about screening than there is about thinking the world will be better off with your offspring in it to begin with. People already have babies until they get one they "want," e.g. male or female.. this just makes the process more efficient. And let's be honest: do we really need more "special needs" children in the world? Wouldn't the best solution be to not have them in the first place? Or is an ounce of prevention only worth a pound of cure as it applies to adults?
hand them the gun and make them blow it away, and cut it up making a huge mess right on the lawn.
I'm confused.. is that supposed to be a deterrent or an incentive? Also, who gets to eat it?
Good call. And we liberals are too retarded to know when people are insulting us anyway, so we won't care. ...
Hmm.. adult content and poor reasoning skills.. I assumed you were talking about Jenny McCarthy at first.
To be fair, we assume the same thing about West Virginia.
What he's saying isn't far fetched, it's just not well thought out. Why would I want a miniature version of my word processor or video editor open on my phone? I don't want a "session" that follows me around everywhere I go. I want my work computer to be my work computer, my phone to be my phone, and my laptop to be my laptop. I want a bike OR a motorcycle, not a bloody moped.
Granted, for people who do a small set of things (e-mail, web browsing, and IM) the "session" paradigm is fine. But those people are already well served by existing devices, especially for email and IM. There are already online bookmarking services, so you can bookmark a page from one browser and open it from another. No, the crazy talk about using "sessions" that they were typing into the post box of Slashdot won't follow them when they have to suddenly go to the store to get some more crazy pills, but is the solution to that really a portable session for *everything*? It would be easy enough for websites to implement a GMail-like procedure of autosaving drafts.
For everyone else.. "I want my terminal windows and browser to follow me, but not gimp or my VM. Unless I have a bank or intranet webpage open, then I don't want those pages to follow me, but I don't want to lose them when I bring my session "back" to the desktop either. I want documents and pictures to transfer automatically, unless they were pictures of my boyfriend plowing me or documents that are confidential." Do you blacklist apps and whitelist data? What apps should be processed locally, and which should just be displayed locally? By the time you get done sorting out all the exceptions, you're basically back to the existing model: software is local, and data is portable. The "session paradigm" is just doing it the hard way.
About 5 man Yarrrrs.