Your racism aside, the US did stop having borders a while back - or, I should say, it decided to make the border 100 miles wide, thus allowing Customs officials to checkpoint people well within the actual borders of the US.
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
Whether he is working against the (true, long-term) interests of the government (to say nothing of the people) is entirely a matter of opinion. There are a lot of American citizens who are not happy at all with what the NSA has been doing.
You have an inherent right to go where you please (without trespassing, or possibly even with) and free association. It's just that governments restrict that.
And what is your proof or argument for this? (Q: do rights even exist, in any meaningful non-navel-gazing way, outside of a framework of laws and governments to define and protect said rights?)
At least as important as either of these people is the guy who figures out how to put actual wheels under the business, instead of a bunch of bumpy logs.
The first mistake is confusing management with leadership.
A very important distinction, and also important to remember that you need both. Not all good leaders are good managers, and vice versa, and people who can do both well are hard to find.
In a similar vein, try Stanislaw Lem's The Futurological Congress, in which the entire world of the future is revealed to be a massive shared drug-induced hallucination designed to keep us from realizing the awful truth. (...or is it? mwwwwahahahah...;-)
by John Brunner, predates cyberpunk by half a decade and features strong themes of government secrecy and surveillance.
RTFA, newb!
Yeah, OK, but don't forget to read The Shockwave Rider (and anything else by Brunner you can get your hands on - The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar at the very least) while you're at it.
No, it shows you better ways need to be developed for refining oil (since we know it is possible, given those historic ratios)
No, those historic ratios where possible because the oil was easier to get at, and we were pulling the lightest sweetest stuff out of the ground e.g. Pennsylvania Crude that was so light you could practically use it as-is. As we search more and deeper, we're getting to the heavier, nastier stuff that take more work/cost to refine.
If the Internet has taught me anything, it's that ideas are a dime a dozen (humans are a gregarious, clever bunch) and execution is 95% of any product success.
Execution requires ideas, too. Not all execution is created equal; the differences are in efficiency, cleverness, economy, etc. all of which require good ideas to achieve. That's why things like manufacturing processes are also patentable.
Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.
Absolutely the Communist Revolution in China stifled innovation. But what about the period between 1789 and the Revolution? How innovative was China during that period, vs. the United States?
Or, maybe Curtiss et al could have just paid the damned license fees instead of trying to cheap out. As you indicate in your quote, the Wright Brothers weren't trying to keep everyone else out of the industry; they just wanted to be paid for the use of their invention. That's what patents are for, i.e. to help foster the spread and use of new technologies via the profit motive.
Slashdot Mirror
Your racism aside, the US did stop having borders a while back - or, I should say, it decided to make the border 100 miles wide, thus allowing Customs officials to checkpoint people well within the actual borders of the US.
The hell there isn't. I don't know about you, but I am a native of the United States of America.
One wonders where the Constitution specifically allows political parties to deny entrance to invited guests purely for speech reasons.
The Constitution doesn't allow political parties to do anything. The Constitution never mentions political parties at all.
You are wrong. Freedom is endowed by our creator
And who is that, exactly?
Can we PLEASE deport the NSA?
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
Since when does a foreign citizen who actively works AGAINST the interests of the US government allowed freedoms to enter the United States?
Whether he is working against the (true, long-term) interests of the government (to say nothing of the people) is entirely a matter of opinion. There are a lot of American citizens who are not happy at all with what the NSA has been doing.
You have an inherent right to go where you please (without trespassing, or possibly even with) and free association. It's just that governments restrict that.
And what is your proof or argument for this? (Q: do rights even exist, in any meaningful non-navel-gazing way, outside of a framework of laws and governments to define and protect said rights?)
I saw this picture recently and it sums it up nicely: http://media.lolwall.co/c/2013/04/boss-vs-leader_264722-624x.jpeg
At least as important as either of these people is the guy who figures out how to put actual wheels under the business, instead of a bunch of bumpy logs.
The first mistake is confusing management with leadership.
A very important distinction, and also important to remember that you need both. Not all good leaders are good managers, and vice versa, and people who can do both well are hard to find.
Gee, I wonder how long before we can 3D-print gunpowder?
In a similar vein, try Stanislaw Lem's The Futurological Congress , in which the entire world of the future is revealed to be a massive shared drug-induced hallucination designed to keep us from realizing the awful truth. (...or is it? mwwwwahahahah... ;-)
by John Brunner, predates cyberpunk by half a decade and features strong themes of government secrecy and surveillance.
RTFA, newb!
Yeah, OK, but don't forget to read The Shockwave Rider (and anything else by Brunner you can get your hands on - The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar at the very least) while you're at it.
No, it shows you better ways need to be developed for refining oil (since we know it is possible, given those historic ratios)
No, those historic ratios where possible because the oil was easier to get at, and we were pulling the lightest sweetest stuff out of the ground e.g. Pennsylvania Crude that was so light you could practically use it as-is. As we search more and deeper, we're getting to the heavier, nastier stuff that take more work/cost to refine.
60% is still quite a bit more efficient than a car-sized internal combustion engine.
The reds didn't just spring up here.
No, but they were the first ones here. As if that meant anything at all.
If the Internet has taught me anything, it's that ideas are a dime a dozen (humans are a gregarious, clever bunch) and execution is 95% of any product success.
Execution requires ideas, too. Not all execution is created equal; the differences are in efficiency, cleverness, economy, etc. all of which require good ideas to achieve. That's why things like manufacturing processes are also patentable.
Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.
Absolutely the Communist Revolution in China stifled innovation. But what about the period between 1789 and the Revolution? How innovative was China during that period, vs. the United States?
Or, maybe Curtiss et al could have just paid the damned license fees instead of trying to cheap out. As you indicate in your quote, the Wright Brothers weren't trying to keep everyone else out of the industry; they just wanted to be paid for the use of their invention. That's what patents are for, i.e. to help foster the spread and use of new technologies via the profit motive.
That guy died, twelve years later. COINCIDENCE???. (Probably, since he died of a sudden heart attack.)
That depends on your definition of right. Acting without a common definition is anarchy.
We have a common definition - it's called the Fourth Amendment. And the First.
Free Pussy Riot!
Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing..
He hasn't betrayed democracy; he has served it by dragging a secretive and sinister action of our government into the light of day.
At one point back in the '90s, the highway speed limit in Montana was "reasonable and prudent".
The Soviets were Russians before they became Soviets.
Using just your head, what is 16.2% of a meter? Using just your head, what is 16.2% of a yard?
Yeah, 'cause that problem comes up every 5 minutes for most people.