In the business world, one fundamental risk is that as soon as the public is aware of your product, one test of the worth of your efforts is if people still come to you or end up adopting the idea for themselves. If the idea is simple and easily re-implemented elsewhere, then basing a business model on it is nearly suicidal (i.e., it is a natural commodity!). At this point, if you can't compete on price, then, well, your only profit is experience.
Using software patents to defend such a business model is still insufficient. In software, it is the quality of implementation coupled with price that differentiates competitors. Of course, Microsoft excused themselves of this reality long ago, but, thankfully, we're going to be giving them a rude wake-up RSN!
Yes, if you want to have this box in your car, by all means opt in. If you dont want it, you shouldn't have to have it. You'll pay higher insurance premiums, but thats fair.
The only case I can think of where a black box should be mandatory is after a conviction is made based on other evidence. The black box, then, could be part of a probation or paroll period for a person whose constitutional rights were already stripped by the conviction.
The constitution was voted on, and can be changed.
This has worked very well in instances where rights were added (repealing prohibiltion, emancipation of slaves, voting rights) and has failed miserably when rights were taken away (federal income tax).
A signifigant amount of pollution does come from cars.
Stories about Mexico City and LA are decent examples. From a property rights point of view, there are strong arguments in favor of developing technology that pollutes as little as possible (not necessarily forced by legislation but by a fear of liability).
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
Government-provided national defense is allowed under the constitution. Going on the offensive in a dubious "war on terrorism" is not. The problem is politicians allowing popular opinion to drive unconstitutional public policy. Not only that, Congress was caught with their pants down with the PATRIOT Act. They are doing things that they think represent their constituencies rather than doing things that really do represent their constituencies, and, in a way, they are defeating the benefits of representative government (too worried about re-election, I guess).
The irony of socialism in the USA is that the people who support it have a conflicted array of priorities. Often, they want to legalize pot (yet impose strict gun control), stand by the First Amendment to the ends of the earth (yet support government-controlled art subsidies and government-controlled public schools), want jobs for everyone (yet implement protectionist policies against foreign labor and trade), and want housing for everyone (giving money towards $900/month LA apartments apparently doesn't bother them).
Here's something for them to ponder: which way do you want it, because you can't have both freedom and socialism. Free trade is as essential as free speech (it encourages recognizing and understanding reality rather than hiding behind warm-n-fuzzy trade restrictions). Ending the drug war will benefit the lower classes immensely (lower crime, lower imprisonment rates, less organized crime). Repealing the income tax will benefit everyone (it violates the Bill of Rights, too). Getting rid of minimum wages will allow people truly in the ditches and alleys to get at least a weekly income that isn't based on charity. And so on.
Most of the arguments against free markets by socialists feed on events from early industrialization. The simple fact is that immature economies have not yet generated enough wealth to sustain the qualities of life that people yearn for. Now, 100 years later, it really is the norm for people to have either decent apartments or 3-bedroom homes with a backyard. Food is extremely affordable. Health care in the USA is still the best (well, as long as stifling and unbalanced regulation doesn't kill it off). If that isn't progress, then I don't know what is.
Republicans aren't innocent, either. Good-ol-boy pork and industry subsidies don't help anything, either, as it only increases the inertia to move away from old technologies in favor of new ones. It almost seems that Republicans are socialists, but towards businesses rather than people (and they are in denial about it).
Children's rights, specifically in reguard to searches, and free speech are not the same as an adults.
What the Supreme Court does is little different from that of Congress, and political motivations and current trends in society influence their decision making. The law of the land need not nor rarely does reflect reality. Attempts to take away inalienable rights in the name of safety is rather futile and damaging in the long term.
you'll find that woman didn't have the same rights, and that slaves are only 2/5th's of a man
These rights were added in later amendments as society worked out some of its issues.
So, I'd say pretty much ever last right in the Bill of Rights when taken in full view of the context within which it was written, specifically doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a male of European descent.
The authors of the Constitution should be given more credit than this. The vast majority of the Constitution is written in a way that is agnostic of gender, race, or age. The choice of the pronoun "he" is at least partially due to the lack of a suitable gender-neutral pronoun in the English language.
The laws regarding participation in government are relevant to the operation of government and not so much to individual liberty. The other laws regarding cars, alcohol, and guns are merely naive attempts at protecting chilren from responsibility and only postpone the inevitable lessons they will learn about life. These laws actually are only subtly different to what is going on with the RFID tracking devices. The RFID tags are just one more way to subjugate children into a second-class.
Further, the age-based laws that you cite are generally regarding priviledges that can be assigned largely independently of age. However, our society has decided to take the lazy route in setting the criteria, which is very unfortunate but telling about human nature when defining new ways in which the government will operate.
Fundamentally, however, it stands that children do have the same rights and individual liberties as adults, and they should be respected for their humanity.
Even the Bill of Rights is limited in it's application to children.
Where? I'd like to see you point out which amendment is constrained by age in the Bill of Rights.
The only restrictions in the Constitution regarding age, IIRC, are regarding voting and eligibility for public office. The First Amendment doesn't have "blah blah...except people under 18".
If children are not protected by the Constitution, then it must be due to some ass backwards Supreme Court ruling or something.
Only during government-approved hours for studying government approved mathematics in government-designated locations deemed by the government as suitable for studying mathematics.
I know this might sound rediculous, but Buffalo is beginning down a long dark path in this direction.
wouldn't the parents come into play in that matter.
No. Technology like this is yet another excuse parents will use to be lazy, whether they realize it or not. As more aspects of behavior are codified into arbitrary systems and enforced by tracking devices, we merely become parts moving about in a de facto machine of regulation. Getting around the regulation will have sufficiently high barriers that people will assume the low-energy path and play along in their miserable barely tolerable lives.
If you think youre living in democracy, youre sadly mistaken
This is irrelevant. The whole point is to prevent history repeating itself. The greivances listed in The Declaration of Independence is beginning to look like a checklist.
The representative government prescribed by the Constitution is one that was intended to be resistant to corruption not corruption-proof. It is still up to the People to keep the country free for their children and grand children.
It seems as if the pace of everything has gotten "faster, quicker, more efficient" and yet, at the same time we should be reaping the rewards of all this efficiency with more free time, which obviously hasn't materialized.
I don't understand. The result of our efforts is the practical realization of "Extreme Ketchup" that also happens to be purple. Once I saw that at the grocery store, I knew my life was complete.
I can't wait for the next "take back my time day" devoted to all the time wasted celebrating the other days devoted to random crap.
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
This idea that people are somehow enslaved to the Evil Corporations are rather ignorant.
I think one thing people get so angry about is that they think that, somehow, the world owes them something just for existing. This selfishness is rampant throughout cries about "evil corporations" and "welfare is a human right".
Freedom is a right, everything else is merely along for the ride.
How long until we see a robot at the drug store pondering what kind of condoms to buy?
Couple this with zero-tolerance policies
on
Reading, Writing, RFID
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
and our kids are totally fucked. I predict an entire generation of useless paranoid humans who can't bear any responsibility, because of their paralyzing fear of irrational and inequitable punishment.
Even without these tags, I remember the animosity generated among kids when someone gets away with something (beats the system) while other kids get caught red-handed (brought a Swiss army knife to school, because, well, it's useful for stuff).
In France, do you know how much of your taxes subsidized the nuclear industry. Until this question is answered, you really don't know the true cost of your electricity to make comparisons to other sources.
Slashdot Mirror
is that the jokes about 80-year-old female genitalia in junior high school will no longer be funny (funny in the context of 14-year-olds, that is).
In the business world, one fundamental risk is that as soon as the public is aware of your product, one test of the worth of your efforts is if people still come to you or end up adopting the idea for themselves. If the idea is simple and easily re-implemented elsewhere, then basing a business model on it is nearly suicidal (i.e., it is a natural commodity!). At this point, if you can't compete on price, then, well, your only profit is experience.
Using software patents to defend such a business model is still insufficient. In software, it is the quality of implementation coupled with price that differentiates competitors. Of course, Microsoft excused themselves of this reality long ago, but, thankfully, we're going to be giving them a rude wake-up RSN!
Yes, if you want to have this box in your car, by all means opt in. If you dont want it, you shouldn't have to have it. You'll pay higher insurance premiums, but thats fair.
The only case I can think of where a black box should be mandatory is after a conviction is made based on other evidence. The black box, then, could be part of a probation or paroll period for a person whose constitutional rights were already stripped by the conviction.
a powerful software virtualization solution that allows you to run multiple PC-based operating systems simultaneously on one workstation
I foresee a mainframe-migration marketing campaign from Microsoft (shudder).
The constitution was voted on, and can be changed.
This has worked very well in instances where rights were added (repealing prohibiltion, emancipation of slaves, voting rights) and has failed miserably when rights were taken away (federal income tax).
A signifigant amount of pollution does come from cars.
Stories about Mexico City and LA are decent examples. From a property rights point of view, there are strong arguments in favor of developing technology that pollutes as little as possible (not necessarily forced by legislation but by a fear of liability).
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
Government-provided national defense is allowed under the constitution. Going on the offensive in a dubious "war on terrorism" is not. The problem is politicians allowing popular opinion to drive unconstitutional public policy. Not only that, Congress was caught with their pants down with the PATRIOT Act. They are doing things that they think represent their constituencies rather than doing things that really do represent their constituencies, and, in a way, they are defeating the benefits of representative government (too worried about re-election, I guess).
The irony of socialism in the USA is that the people who support it have a conflicted array of priorities. Often, they want to legalize pot (yet impose strict gun control), stand by the First Amendment to the ends of the earth (yet support government-controlled art subsidies and government-controlled public schools), want jobs for everyone (yet implement protectionist policies against foreign labor and trade), and want housing for everyone (giving money towards $900/month LA apartments apparently doesn't bother them).
Here's something for them to ponder: which way do you want it, because you can't have both freedom and socialism. Free trade is as essential as free speech (it encourages recognizing and understanding reality rather than hiding behind warm-n-fuzzy trade restrictions). Ending the drug war will benefit the lower classes immensely (lower crime, lower imprisonment rates, less organized crime). Repealing the income tax will benefit everyone (it violates the Bill of Rights, too). Getting rid of minimum wages will allow people truly in the ditches and alleys to get at least a weekly income that isn't based on charity. And so on.
Most of the arguments against free markets by socialists feed on events from early industrialization. The simple fact is that immature economies have not yet generated enough wealth to sustain the qualities of life that people yearn for. Now, 100 years later, it really is the norm for people to have either decent apartments or 3-bedroom homes with a backyard. Food is extremely affordable. Health care in the USA is still the best (well, as long as stifling and unbalanced regulation doesn't kill it off). If that isn't progress, then I don't know what is.
Republicans aren't innocent, either. Good-ol-boy pork and industry subsidies don't help anything, either, as it only increases the inertia to move away from old technologies in favor of new ones. It almost seems that Republicans are socialists, but towards businesses rather than people (and they are in denial about it).
Children's rights, specifically in reguard to searches, and free speech are not the same as an adults.
What the Supreme Court does is little different from that of Congress, and political motivations and current trends in society influence their decision making. The law of the land need not nor rarely does reflect reality. Attempts to take away inalienable rights in the name of safety is rather futile and damaging in the long term.
you'll find that woman didn't have the same rights, and that slaves are only 2/5th's of a man
These rights were added in later amendments as society worked out some of its issues.
So, I'd say pretty much ever last right in the Bill of Rights when taken in full view of the context within which it was written, specifically doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a male of European descent.
The authors of the Constitution should be given more credit than this. The vast majority of the Constitution is written in a way that is agnostic of gender, race, or age. The choice of the pronoun "he" is at least partially due to the lack of a suitable gender-neutral pronoun in the English language.
1) I was sort of joking about the "people under 30" reference.
2) The little red lights embedded into people's hands in Logan's Run are merely a glizier form of RFID.
The laws regarding participation in government are relevant to the operation of government and not so much to individual liberty. The other laws regarding cars, alcohol, and guns are merely naive attempts at protecting chilren from responsibility and only postpone the inevitable lessons they will learn about life. These laws actually are only subtly different to what is going on with the RFID tracking devices. The RFID tags are just one more way to subjugate children into a second-class.
Further, the age-based laws that you cite are generally regarding priviledges that can be assigned largely independently of age. However, our society has decided to take the lazy route in setting the criteria, which is very unfortunate but telling about human nature when defining new ways in which the government will operate.
Fundamentally, however, it stands that children do have the same rights and individual liberties as adults, and they should be respected for their humanity.
Even the Bill of Rights is limited in it's application to children.
Where? I'd like to see you point out which amendment is constrained by age in the Bill of Rights.
Minors are not protected by the Constitution.
The only restrictions in the Constitution regarding age, IIRC, are regarding voting and eligibility for public office. The First Amendment doesn't have "blah blah...except people under 18".
If children are not protected by the Constitution, then it must be due to some ass backwards Supreme Court ruling or something.
More time for important things like math.
Only during government-approved hours for studying government approved mathematics in government-designated locations deemed by the government as suitable for studying mathematics.
I know this might sound rediculous, but Buffalo is beginning down a long dark path in this direction.
And I hope "people over 30" will be welcome, 'cause I'll be supporting them all the way.
You're setting yourself up for disappointment, because Logan's Run is turning out to be prophetic.
However, it's very important that kids learn that kids aren't adults, and they don't have the rights adults have.
No, children have every right that adults have. It is up to adults to teach children how to live within those rights responsibly.
wouldn't the parents come into play in that matter.
No. Technology like this is yet another excuse parents will use to be lazy, whether they realize it or not. As more aspects of behavior are codified into arbitrary systems and enforced by tracking devices, we merely become parts moving about in a de facto machine of regulation. Getting around the regulation will have sufficiently high barriers that people will assume the low-energy path and play along in their miserable barely tolerable lives.
If you think youre living in democracy, youre sadly mistaken
This is irrelevant. The whole point is to prevent history repeating itself. The greivances listed in The Declaration of Independence is beginning to look like a checklist.
The representative government prescribed by the Constitution is one that was intended to be resistant to corruption not corruption-proof. It is still up to the People to keep the country free for their children and grand children.
It seems as if the pace of everything has gotten "faster, quicker, more efficient" and yet, at the same time we should be reaping the rewards of all this efficiency with more free time, which obviously hasn't materialized.
I don't understand. The result of our efforts is the practical realization of "Extreme Ketchup" that also happens to be purple. Once I saw that at the grocery store, I knew my life was complete.
Once you are done, you are also eligible for a lot more jobs.
Only those jobs that say "Ph.D. preferred." Whether that is a lot is rather subjective.
I can't wait for the next "take back my time day" devoted to all the time wasted celebrating the other days devoted to random crap.
This idea that people are somehow enslaved to the Evil Corporations are rather ignorant.
I think one thing people get so angry about is that they think that, somehow, the world owes them something just for existing. This selfishness is rampant throughout cries about "evil corporations" and "welfare is a human right".
Freedom is a right, everything else is merely along for the ride.
How long until we see a robot at the drug store pondering what kind of condoms to buy?
and our kids are totally fucked. I predict an entire generation of useless paranoid humans who can't bear any responsibility, because of their paralyzing fear of irrational and inequitable punishment.
Even without these tags, I remember the animosity generated among kids when someone gets away with something (beats the system) while other kids get caught red-handed (brought a Swiss army knife to school, because, well, it's useful for stuff).
Thanks for the informed reply. The important thing is that Round-up isn't some nasty terrible chemical like the original poster was trying to claim.
In France, do you know how much of your taxes subsidized the nuclear industry. Until this question is answered, you really don't know the true cost of your electricity to make comparisons to other sources.