...and also because Indiana is part of the United States, who give their citizens different freedoms than other countries may. The argument in Indian is not over rights, but over how broadly (or narrowly) those rights can be recognized.
Methinks you miss the point. Yes, the debate is corrupted, but you lay blame at the feet of science for not "producing a model that actually works"?
Say it with me: "all models are wrong; some are useful." The implication of this is that there must be much trial and error, to get better and better models to explain the causes.
The (correctly-termed) "anti-science" proponents do not look to fund or study countering hypotheses, they find ways to poke little holes in the current model then use that to support broad brush policy decisions - not better models.
Your example - 18 years of cooler weather - does not "completely invalidate" the model. It brings up an issue warranting further study. Perhaps Sen. Cruz will be willing to agree to funding it, since he is, based on your implication, not "anti-science."
To be clear, from TFA, the patent developer founded Smartflash as a holding company for his patents. So although Smartflash technically had "no employees..." It wasn't a troll in the clearest sense.
Jr. Mints & Jujubes...
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
IIRC, Jr. Mints were chosen as a backup - the candy was going to be M&M's but the writers couldn't get permission from Hershey to use the brand name. Jr. Mints was more than happy for the free pub and got millions worth of free advertising (and a resulting sales bump).
Although many if not most actual products in shows these days are paid product placements.
I always thought it ironic that the Eden story is interpreted as God creating paradise and giving humans a choice to live in it, and we chose against him (therefore creating "original sin" and requiring us to repent, etc.)
But if God is the creator, and is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent (as the Bible states), then he would have KNOWN that Adam and Eve would make the (wrong) choice. So it isn't really a choice, is it?
Therefore, the Genesis story is not about God giving humans a choice, but rather about teaching us a lesson about what happens when we don't follow the directions. Kind of like a king, prophet, parent or other authority figure might want to do?
He was offered $100k to v/o a sure-to-be popular game, as a work-for-hire...no royalties. Could he have negotiated a cut of sales? Sure, and Rockstar would have said "no thanks" and hired the next guy who could act with an accent. And he could've said "no thanks without royalties" and moved on. He's complaining about a six-figure payout for a few weeks' work? C'mon.
I get it, I get it, it's entertainment (bigger than a blockbuster movie) so he should get a cut. But he's got no name recognition. Big stars ask $20 mil per picture because THEY will get people to see the movie. GTA would sell with him or any other actor doing voice over.
Many have. Check out the major owners, who now own multiple stations within a market - Bonneville, Clear Channel, etc. The only time it would be halted is if one corporation was moving to a monopoly position.
The "airwaves" are supposed to be public/free, and are licensed by the FCC. Satellite is not under FCC's jurisdiction as it goes beyond the public spectrum. It was purely a lobbyist's game that held this up for so long.
Interesting how Murdoch can take over the WSJ with all the holdings in news media (print/airwaves) with nary a hitch in the proceedings, but something outside the gov't (and lobbyists') regulatory control takes more than a year.
except for all the other terrestrial radio stations. And HD radio. And Internet radio. And anyone else who can afford to launch a satellite into outer space.
Ummm, yes they do. Executives have stock options, which give them the opportunity to "buy" shares at a fixed (low) rate when it vests at some time down the road. Say you have 10,000 options, at a strike price of $15. If, at vesting time, the stock is at $22, the executive gets either to cash out $70,000 (($22-$15) * 10,000), or they can keep the 10,000 shares and let it ride.
Either way, their "customer" is the shareholder. As long as the end purchaser is satisfied (or contracted) enough to ensure revenue growth, that's all the executives are concerned with.
I believe we already have. This is my opinion, but how many popular albums have come out recently whose songs are a cohesive part of a whole? Nowadays it seems like every song on a popular artist's album is geared to be a potential single, rather than part of a whole collection. I'm talking major releases that are for the radio, not indies.
No rational person would disagree that these eavesdropping methods don't work. But the proponents of this legislation have been focusing the conversation on a "no eavesdropping = potential danger" argument.
However, the discussion by opponents has not been against eavesdropping, but that with current law, there is no OVERSIGHT by any governmental agency of the eavesdropping. Prior laws always allowed eavesdropping... but they also required a court order (to allow for oversight and transparency, a key element to a free democracy). The only cogent argument against this oversight -- that sometimes there isn't enough time to get a court order -- was shown to be patently incorrect, as the prior laws allowed for immediate eavesdropping (as long as a court order was eventually filed).
I'm too lazy to provide links, but it has been documented both that a) during the time of the court-order requirement, almost no court order requests were denied (something like 2 in 17,000); and b) during the non-court order law there were some thousands of eavesdropping events that were shown to have no connection to terrorism.
The reason, plain and simple, for articles like this is that the US administration is fearmongering to push the strategy that they do not want oversight into what they are doing. This is a bad thing. Democracy dies behind closed doors. Don't be fooled. Keep the focus where it should be!
OK, I'll bite, because I was imagining this very discussion when reading the article...
I'm sure we can agree that "capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit..." (thanks, Wikipedia!). However, you can't build a better mousetrap without seeing the original mousetrap, to wit. This discussion of capitalism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ownership of IP, patent protection, trademarks, etc., which is what your argument is about. Our government, long ago, put in rules about ownership of product ideas through trademark registering. (thanks government regulations!). Not sure how much that's going to be enforced in China (or any other country) unless that country will agree and will enforce it.
Many countries do have similar IP protections, but there are some subtle (but significant) differences. For example, IIRC, in Japan you can "patent" something there even if it hasn't been created, which has caused some products patented in the US to be in infringement in Japan, allowing Japanese manufacturers an advantage for producing it there or requiring royalties for the US company to sell it there.
Again, I'm not trying to make an argument about whether brand ownership and copying is/should be legal. The point is that these companies, like it or not, are practicing pure, unfettered capitalism, although via an informal market (outside of regulations). They are making products for a profit. They are even improving on prior models. The entire point of the article, is that these products are evolving from cheap knockoffs ("Adicias" vs. "Adidas" in one example) to, in some cases, having an established manufacturer partner with these copying manufacturers to produce official products (the Chrysler/QQ example). And Japan and Korea both are prime examples of other markets where this has occurred. Whether it will eventually happen in China remains to be seen, given the negative press on some of their production methods (see pet food & toothpaste).
"this has never happened to me, therefore your logic is silly for suggesting it could happen. Further, I am far too talented and independent to ever work somewhere that would do such a thing."
Good for you that your company doesn't demand it. However, that really wasn't parent poster's point, was it? Rather, it was that something we previously assumed would never be required as a condition for employment now is. And there are quite a few large, successful companies (ones that likely employ employees as talented as you) that do.
Better to raise the issue now, discuss it in public and get the word out that some industries are actually opposing the proposed legislation. Given the tenor of privacy issues in the US and UK, it's not such a bad idea to try and deal with this now.
...which is how the good Doctor could remain in perpetuity as well, if you think of it. Interesting plot point could be the ethical dilemmas faced with the Doctor "stealing" someone else's body!
aaaah, Slashdot... where else would the top post diverge into a discussion of the cost/benefit of hardcover vs. paperback, instead of what's actually contained between said covers.
There are times when crashing cars will explode - typically, a front/side crash or rollover won't, but if the gas tank is impacted it could.
I remember reading about this happening accidentally in the first Beverly Hills Cop movie. At the beginning there's a chase with a semitrailer going through neighborhood streets, clearing parked cars out of the way. For the stunt, the cars were all supposed to have empty tanks, but one didn't. When the truck hits it in the back corner, it explodes. No one was injured, the shot was completed...and it made it to the final cut of the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, pardon the pun, they're too big to nail.
...and also because Indiana is part of the United States, who give their citizens different freedoms than other countries may. The argument in Indian is not over rights, but over how broadly (or narrowly) those rights can be recognized.
Methinks you miss the point. Yes, the debate is corrupted, but you lay blame at the feet of science for not "producing a model that actually works"?
Say it with me: "all models are wrong; some are useful." The implication of this is that there must be much trial and error, to get better and better models to explain the causes.
The (correctly-termed) "anti-science" proponents do not look to fund or study countering hypotheses, they find ways to poke little holes in the current model then use that to support broad brush policy decisions - not better models.
Your example - 18 years of cooler weather - does not "completely invalidate" the model. It brings up an issue warranting further study. Perhaps Sen. Cruz will be willing to agree to funding it, since he is, based on your implication, not "anti-science."
It's likely that they realized their question-and-answer format was replaced by Google.
To be clear, from TFA, the patent developer founded Smartflash as a holding company for his patents. So although Smartflash technically had "no employees..." It wasn't a troll in the clearest sense.
IIRC, Jr. Mints were chosen as a backup - the candy was going to be M&M's but the writers couldn't get permission from Hershey to use the brand name. Jr. Mints was more than happy for the free pub and got millions worth of free advertising (and a resulting sales bump).
Although many if not most actual products in shows these days are paid product placements.
Yes, but ID is not science. It is philosophy.
Or a corollary thought...
I always thought it ironic that the Eden story is interpreted as God creating paradise and giving humans a choice to live in it, and we chose against him (therefore creating "original sin" and requiring us to repent, etc.)
But if God is the creator, and is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent (as the Bible states), then he would have KNOWN that Adam and Eve would make the (wrong) choice. So it isn't really a choice, is it?
Therefore, the Genesis story is not about God giving humans a choice, but rather about teaching us a lesson about what happens when we don't follow the directions. Kind of like a king, prophet, parent or other authority figure might want to do?
He was offered $100k to v/o a sure-to-be popular game, as a work-for-hire...no royalties. Could he have negotiated a cut of sales? Sure, and Rockstar would have said "no thanks" and hired the next guy who could act with an accent. And he could've said "no thanks without royalties" and moved on. He's complaining about a six-figure payout for a few weeks' work? C'mon.
I get it, I get it, it's entertainment (bigger than a blockbuster movie) so he should get a cut. But he's got no name recognition. Big stars ask $20 mil per picture because THEY will get people to see the movie. GTA would sell with him or any other actor doing voice over.
Simple supply and demand.
Many have. Check out the major owners, who now own multiple stations within a market - Bonneville, Clear Channel, etc. The only time it would be halted is if one corporation was moving to a monopoly position.
The "airwaves" are supposed to be public/free, and are licensed by the FCC. Satellite is not under FCC's jurisdiction as it goes beyond the public spectrum. It was purely a lobbyist's game that held this up for so long.
Interesting how Murdoch can take over the WSJ with all the holdings in news media (print/airwaves) with nary a hitch in the proceedings, but something outside the gov't (and lobbyists') regulatory control takes more than a year.
except for all the other terrestrial radio stations. And HD radio. And Internet radio. And anyone else who can afford to launch a satellite into outer space.
ummm, "both sides"
theist | atheist
seems pretty understandable to me.
"... have to upgrade anyway ... "
Or buy a Mac. With BootCamp.
Ummm, yes they do. Executives have stock options, which give them the opportunity to "buy" shares at a fixed (low) rate when it vests at some time down the road. Say you have 10,000 options, at a strike price of $15. If, at vesting time, the stock is at $22, the executive gets either to cash out $70,000 (($22-$15) * 10,000), or they can keep the 10,000 shares and let it ride.
Either way, their "customer" is the shareholder. As long as the end purchaser is satisfied (or contracted) enough to ensure revenue growth, that's all the executives are concerned with.
I believe we already have. This is my opinion, but how many popular albums have come out recently whose songs are a cohesive part of a whole? Nowadays it seems like every song on a popular artist's album is geared to be a potential single, rather than part of a whole collection. I'm talking major releases that are for the radio, not indies.
Pedantic request, but don't you mean music today is becoming more "lossy"? i.e., mp3, etc?
I think I get your point...just trying to understand for clarity (slight pun intended).
"Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W"
seeing as how we didn't vote for him either time, I would tend to agree.
(ba da bump)
No rational person would disagree that these eavesdropping methods don't work. But the proponents of this legislation have been focusing the conversation on a "no eavesdropping = potential danger" argument.
... but they also required a court order (to allow for oversight and transparency, a key element to a free democracy). The only cogent argument against this oversight -- that sometimes there isn't enough time to get a court order -- was shown to be patently incorrect, as the prior laws allowed for immediate eavesdropping (as long as a court order was eventually filed).
However, the discussion by opponents has not been against eavesdropping, but that with current law, there is no OVERSIGHT by any governmental agency of the eavesdropping. Prior laws always allowed eavesdropping
I'm too lazy to provide links, but it has been documented both that a) during the time of the court-order requirement, almost no court order requests were denied (something like 2 in 17,000); and b) during the non-court order law there were some thousands of eavesdropping events that were shown to have no connection to terrorism.
The reason, plain and simple, for articles like this is that the US administration is fearmongering to push the strategy that they do not want oversight into what they are doing. This is a bad thing. Democracy dies behind closed doors. Don't be fooled. Keep the focus where it should be!
OK, I'll bite, because I was imagining this very discussion when reading the article...
I'm sure we can agree that "capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit..." (thanks, Wikipedia!). However, you can't build a better mousetrap without seeing the original mousetrap, to wit. This discussion of capitalism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ownership of IP, patent protection, trademarks, etc., which is what your argument is about. Our government, long ago, put in rules about ownership of product ideas through trademark registering. (thanks government regulations!). Not sure how much that's going to be enforced in China (or any other country) unless that country will agree and will enforce it.
Many countries do have similar IP protections, but there are some subtle (but significant) differences. For example, IIRC, in Japan you can "patent" something there even if it hasn't been created, which has caused some products patented in the US to be in infringement in Japan, allowing Japanese manufacturers an advantage for producing it there or requiring royalties for the US company to sell it there.
Again, I'm not trying to make an argument about whether brand ownership and copying is/should be legal. The point is that these companies, like it or not, are practicing pure, unfettered capitalism, although via an informal market (outside of regulations). They are making products for a profit. They are even improving on prior models. The entire point of the article, is that these products are evolving from cheap knockoffs ("Adicias" vs. "Adidas" in one example) to, in some cases, having an established manufacturer partner with these copying manufacturers to produce official products (the Chrysler/QQ example). And Japan and Korea both are prime examples of other markets where this has occurred. Whether it will eventually happen in China remains to be seen, given the negative press on some of their production methods (see pet food & toothpaste).
Ahhh, classic /. logic on display...
"this has never happened to me, therefore your logic is silly for suggesting it could happen. Further, I am far too talented and independent to ever work somewhere that would do such a thing."
Good for you that your company doesn't demand it. However, that really wasn't parent poster's point, was it? Rather, it was that something we previously assumed would never be required as a condition for employment now is. And there are quite a few large, successful companies (ones that likely employ employees as talented as you) that do.
Better to raise the issue now, discuss it in public and get the word out that some industries are actually opposing the proposed legislation. Given the tenor of privacy issues in the US and UK, it's not such a bad idea to try and deal with this now.
Absolutely! It would be our own sharks with frickin' laser beams.
Although I would keep the friendly benign face. For some reason it seems creepier.
aaaah, Slashdot... where else would the top post diverge into a discussion of the cost/benefit of hardcover vs. paperback, instead of what's actually contained between said covers.
It's a US association wanting license fees from US companies, right?
So I can still listen to broadcasts hosted outside my borders? How will the Royalty Idiots & A**holes of America enforce this?
There are times when crashing cars will explode - typically, a front/side crash or rollover won't, but if the gas tank is impacted it could.
I remember reading about this happening accidentally in the first Beverly Hills Cop movie. At the beginning there's a chase with a semitrailer going through neighborhood streets, clearing parked cars out of the way. For the stunt, the cars were all supposed to have empty tanks, but one didn't. When the truck hits it in the back corner, it explodes. No one was injured, the shot was completed...and it made it to the final cut of the movie.