Personal responsibility died when policy makers shifted the burden from the person who committed something to society. This system is very good for politicans because they can be never blamed for irresponsibility.
If a burglar is caught, he will be sent to prison (presumably). However, he does not have to pay back the damage he caused. If some of his victims have insurance they will be OK, the others are out of luck. Also, sending him into prison just makes matter worse, because that's another burden on society. Additionally, we all know that prisons do not make him a useful member of society.
In a society with personal responsibility the burglar would have to pay back the damage. You can argue that if somebody makes a huge damage (several million dollars) or inadvertedly claims a life of another person how he can ever pay back the damage.
In this case the person has to be paying back in all his life what damage he caused even if it is never paid back fully. However, putting the burden on society is unjust. Why should I pay for the irresponsibility of others?
Either you restore personal responsibility fully and face the consequences or you have to accept the current system.
Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.
Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.
No, it is not theft. Theft is when one stoles something from an other, thus depriving him from his property. It was explained on/. thousands times, why is it so hard to comprehend?
The phrase 'legally due money' can only be applied to contracts. If you do your work based on a contract then you are entitled to your 'legally due money'. However, if you are not paid that is also not theft. That is a breach of contract and you can sue the other party.
...to realize that the patent system was not created to help inventors. It was specifically created to create a market where the very thought can be sold and bought. Any other explanation is naivity.
Disclaimer: I am against patents. From the article:
Surely if you like the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants, there might be some handy ideas in Solaris. Why ignore it? Because I personally don't think they have anything left worth taking after I've applied the general Unix principles. I really do think Linux is the better system by now, in all the ways that matter.
But more importantly, if I'm wrong, that's OK. People who know Solaris better than I do will tell me and other people about the great things they offer. To try to figure it out on my own would be a waste of time. (emphasis mine)
In our patent driven world, isn't it dangerous to say such things? Since Linux was attacked with patent infrigement claims, Linus should be more careful about saying things which make the reader think about IP theft.
Re:Outsourcing made simple
on
Offshoring IT
·
· Score: 1
Yes, we have heard this before and you are 100% right if the market is totally free. However, the market is more or less (more in communism, less in capitalism) is government controlled. You cannot apply this simple and logical statement to a distorted market.
Also, do not forget that outsourcing is the consequence of globalisation and (it is hard to swallow, I know) it just balances the robbery of the past. In the past the West (North Amerika, Europe) robbed the East (India, China, Afrika). A lot of whealth was trasfered to the West.
There are 6.5 billion people on Earth. 1-1.5 billion have quite a good living standard. The rest are poor, very poor. It is only possible because we use much more resources than they use. Outsourcing just moves a little wealth back to the developing countries.
The consequence is that some of us will be poorer and some of them will be richer. And this will shed light on the resource issue. There are not enough resources on the Earth which allow a good living standard for everybody. Somebody has to pay the price. Will it be us or they?
Can you explain why we need very efficient solar panels? (currently the state of the art is around 25% efficient, so you mean for say 3* more power per square meter?) Doesn't seem very convincing.
The smaller the territory on which there are solar panels the smaller the maintenance cost. This is just one reason. Also, there are losses when you transfer the power to the end user.
AFAIK, solar panels make DC which you have to convert to AC. Then there is loss when you transmit this energy via power lines, etc.
If you use the DC to electolyze hydrogen there is a loss in the electrolysis process. Electrolysis is about 80%-90% efficient. Then you have to store the hydrogen either in gas from or in liquid form. Both has energy requirements. Then you have to transfer this hydrogen to the end user which is the transporting cost.
So, in the end, the end user will receive about 10%-15% out of the 25% produced by the solar panels. Because these losses are fixed losses, if you make a solar panel which is 75% efficient the end user will receive 40%-50% out of the 75%.
Finally, there are not enough raw materials (mostly silicon) on Earth to make enough solar panels which are only 25% efficient to cover the energy needs of Earth.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source. Currently, hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels or natural gas. Electrolyzing hydrogen from water is very expensive. We need very efficient solar panels for the hydrogen economy to start.
Biodiesel looks more promising. There are some algae which contains 50% oil. Here's a link: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alg e.html
The picture is not so clear. Have you heard about the petrodollar? It means that oil can only be bought with dollar. So, the world needs dollar to buy oil. It's almost like the US sells the oil to the rest of the world. This is very very good for the US. This enabled the US to have a huge debt without going bankrupt. This fact made the US the only superpower of the world and not the wonders of capitalizm.
Because there is a huge demand for dollar the US government can inflate the dollar without severe consequences which no other government can do.
Rumour says that Saddam made himself a target when he switched to Euros in November 2000. The US cannot allow OPEC to switch to Euros. That would be the end of the US economy. And it would be a severe shock to the world economy, too.
It's not possible because of petrodollar. Currently, oil can only be bought with dollar. So, the world needs dollar. If the USA switches to other means of energy then the dollar will be replaced with euro (most probably). Petroeuro will be born.
However, the USA has a huge debt and it can only live with this debt because of the petrodollar. Without petrodollar the monetary system of the USA will collapse which means the monetary system of the world will collapse which means the economy of the world will collapse.
Sorry, but this switching can't be done without serious economic crisis which will be much severe than the Great Depression.
At my company the management has started an MDA (Model Driven Architecture) project, because some developers presented it to them as the holy grail in software development. They use a GUI to make associations between classes and ASL for the code. They say that you are less likely to make a mistake because you code in a platform independent way (so, you do not have to pay attention to all the little details) and the translator is responsible to make the actual code.
Some of us more experienced developers do not think it is the holy grail. It looks like you can make as much mistake as in convetional languages. Also, development with a GUI (see at www.kc.com) is much more cumbersome.
Is there anyone who used MDA and ASL and has some experience about it?
You're contradicting yourself - if you can own knowledge, then you can lose knowledge. And yes - if an idea is come up with, it *is* possible that it will never be redicovered if it is lost. Unlikely? Sure. But possible.
You are right. However, IMHO the chance is so small that it does not worth giving monopoly powers to a few corporations at the expanse of the public.
Also, if you do not have faith in humans then how can you trust in the goverment? As far as I know, the goverment consists of humans, too.
And believe me, I have given quite a bit of thought and read some books on the matter. Concerning human history I think we should learn from our minstakes and one of the greatest mistakes was that the public gave power to a few men, let they be kings, senators, presidents or whatever, to control their lives.
I think you shouldn't work with patent lawyers, because what you said is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on slashdot.
Why should I read 20 or so year old outdated patents? Most patents are useless after 20 years. And if not they became public knowledge, so I do not have to search the patent database.
And I can own knowledge. If I have an idea and I do not share the idea, then it is mine. Nobody can force me to share my idea. However, if I share the idea with somebody I no longer can claim ownership on that idea and I cannot use force to prevent that somebody to use my idea.
I have to repeat myself. Knowledge cannot be lost. Do you really believe that without Einstein we do not have the Theory of General Relativity? Somebody else would have come up with it sooner or later. From the society point of view nobody is irreplaceable.
However, you are right about that I cannot do anything with my property. But it is only true because there is goverment control. I do not believe in goverment. I do not want to be controlled. It looks like you want the goverment to tell you what you can do and what you can't do.
I should remind you that according to patent lawyers you should not read any patents because if by chance you infringe on one the court may decide you commited willful infringement. How is this situation helps sharing knowledge?
Also, if a particular knowledge is mine (it is in my mind therefore it is mine) then I should do anything with it including making money from it.
This trade secret excuse also tires me. This comes from the assumption that knowledge can be lost. Knowledge cannot be lost. It is not a physical thing which can be really lost or destroyed. So, sooner or later every knowledge which kept secret become public knowledge. The only difference is that there is no goverment granted monopolies which is good for everyone.
There are many slashdotters who think patents are needed because without them the little guy is screwed. However, there is a much more fundamental problem here. Patents basically prevents someone from using his own knowledge even if the knowledge came from someone else initally.
Tell me, if preventing someone from using his own knowledge (it is his knowledge since it is in his mind) by force is not slavery then what is it?
Concerning point 2: You are right, I made a mistake. I should write that the State itself does not want its taxpayers to go to a foreign country.
On point 3: You are right about the original intentions behind the creating of the patent system. However, the patent system is widely abused nowadays. Applications are so vaguely described that even those in the profession cannot comprehend them.
About companies keeping their inventions secret, you imply that knowledge is scarce. This is not the case, knowledge is abundant. That's the reason for the patent system, to make knowledge atrificially scarce (for the benefit of the powerful).
1. Free trade of goods. Almost done. Shipping goods from country A to country B is cheap (even if some tariffs are applied).
2. Free movement of workforce. Countries all over the world have a limitation on this. You just can't go to work in an other country. Even in the EU it is not easy (lot of paperwork) to do so. Also, language and cultural differences make a person reluctant to move.
3. Free trade of knowledge. Patents and copyrights restrict the sharing of knowlegde. They should be eliminated entirely.
Big businesses want point 1 to be realized, but do not want point 2 and 3. Until point 2 and 3 become true, outsourcing is most probably bad for everyone.
Without patents, you would have to keep your ideas a secret to protect them, then other won't benefit from them. If others can build on your ideas shouldn't you be entitled to a peice of it if you wanted it?
You imply that if somebody come up with an idea then nobody else can come up with the same idea. From the society point of view everybody is replacable. Even Mozart, Newton, Einstein, etc. If Einstein had died at the age of 5 then someone else would have come up with the theory of relativity. Knowledge, unlike physical items, cannot be lost forever, it will be rediscovered later.
Knowledge is not scarce. Patents create artificial scarcity to benefit the few. Patents are not the creation of market (natural) forces. They are the creation of the powerful who would like to extend their power over everybody else.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
I am tired to hear this lame excuse over and over again. If the inventor fears that his idea will be stolen then he should keep it secret or sign an NDA with whom he tells about it. But keeping me from using the knowledge in my head by force is outrageous.
Also, patenting something does not mean you will be getting any compensation for it. If your idea is not marketable then you will get nothing even if it took you years to develop it.
Let's see the example of Dyson and his bagless vacuum cleaner. It took Dyson years to develop it and after that he patented his implementation. It looks like circumventing the patent is not an easy task because only LG could do it (at least in Hungary, only LG offers bagless vacuum cleaners, and LG most probably patented its implementation, too).
Do I benefit from that patent as a customer? Can I buy a cheap bagless vaccum clearer? Is there competiton which drives the price lower and lower? No. Patents just benefit the few at the expense of all others. In the hands of the powerful patents mean easy money and prevent the competition from arising.
Patents also discourage improving an idea. Though you can patent the improvement, you can't use it without paying a license fee to the owner of the original.
It is said the patents drive innovation. Do you really believe without patents innovation will stop? It is possible that the pace of innovation will be slower, but that may not be a bad thing, because society would be more time to adapt the changes.
I have read many comments which supports patents because patents defend the little guy. However, this argument is completely false.
First, as I read in a comment a few days ago, if the little guy has a patent on something, then most probably the big guy has several patents on things which the little guy uses. Cross licensing comes into effect, so the big guy is the winner here.
Second, this little guy vs. big guy is only happening because the entry to the market is not free. And it is not free because patents and other IP laws restrict entry to the market. Without them entry to the market would be much easier, so there would be much more firms on the market competing with each other than now.
Third, patents create a kind of slavery. You have an idea, you patent it, then tell about it to somebody. However, that somebody cannot use your idea because it is patented. It can be said that person thoughts is owned by you. We can call this situation 'Metal Slavery'.
Slashdot Mirror
Personal responsibility died when policy makers shifted the burden from the person who committed something to society. This system is very good for politicans because they can be never blamed for irresponsibility.
If a burglar is caught, he will be sent to prison (presumably). However, he does not have to pay back the damage he caused. If some of his victims have insurance they will be OK, the others are out of luck. Also, sending him into prison just makes matter worse, because that's another burden on society. Additionally, we all know that prisons do not make him a useful member of society.
In a society with personal responsibility the burglar would have to pay back the damage. You can argue that if somebody makes a huge damage (several million dollars) or inadvertedly claims a life of another person how he can ever pay back the damage.
In this case the person has to be paying back in all his life what damage he caused even if it is never paid back fully. However, putting the burden on society is unjust. Why should I pay for the irresponsibility of others?
Either you restore personal responsibility fully and face the consequences or you have to accept the current system.
Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.
Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.
The ridge is 13km high and 20km wide.
Here in Hungary we pay about $45 for 512/128 kbit per month due to the telco monopoly called MATAV.
Depriving someone of legally due money is theft
/. thousands times, why is it so hard to comprehend?
No, it is not theft. Theft is when one stoles something from an other, thus depriving him from his property. It was explained on
The phrase 'legally due money' can only be applied to contracts. If you do your work based on a contract then you are entitled to your 'legally due money'. However, if you are not paid that is also not theft. That is a breach of contract and you can sue the other party.
...to realize that the patent system was not created to help inventors. It was specifically created to create a market where the very thought can be sold and bought. Any other explanation is naivity.
Disclaimer: I am against patents.
From the article:
Surely if you like the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants, there might be some handy ideas in Solaris. Why ignore it?
Because I personally don't think they have anything left worth taking after I've applied the general Unix principles. I really do think Linux is the better system by now, in all the ways that matter.
But more importantly, if I'm wrong, that's OK. People who know Solaris better than I do will tell me and other people about the great things they offer. To try to figure it out on my own would be a waste of time. (emphasis mine)
In our patent driven world, isn't it dangerous to say such things? Since Linux was attacked with patent infrigement claims, Linus should be more careful about saying things which make the reader think about IP theft.
Yes, we have heard this before and you are 100% right if the market is totally free. However, the market is more or less (more in communism, less in capitalism) is government controlled. You cannot apply this simple and logical statement to a distorted market.
Also, do not forget that outsourcing is the consequence of globalisation and (it is hard to swallow, I know) it just balances the robbery of the past. In the past the West (North Amerika, Europe) robbed the East (India, China, Afrika). A lot of whealth was trasfered to the West.
There are 6.5 billion people on Earth. 1-1.5 billion have quite a good living standard. The rest are poor, very poor. It is only possible because we use much more resources than they use. Outsourcing just moves a little wealth back to the developing countries.
The consequence is that some of us will be poorer and some of them will be richer. And this will shed light on the resource issue. There are not enough resources on the Earth which allow a good living standard for everybody. Somebody has to pay the price. Will it be us or they?
Here's the answer why PV cells are not economically feasible.
t ml
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D87.RE.Ch.2PV.h
Here's the answer why PV cells are not economically feasible.
t ml
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D87.RE.Ch.2PV.h
Can you explain why we need very efficient solar panels? (currently the state of the art is around 25% efficient, so you mean for say 3* more power per square meter?) Doesn't seem very convincing.
The smaller the territory on which there are solar panels the smaller the maintenance cost. This is just one reason. Also, there are losses when you transfer the power to the end user.
AFAIK, solar panels make DC which you have to convert to AC. Then there is loss when you transmit this energy via power lines, etc.
If you use the DC to electolyze hydrogen there is a loss in the electrolysis process. Electrolysis is about 80%-90% efficient. Then you have to store the hydrogen either in gas from or in liquid form. Both has energy requirements. Then you have to transfer this hydrogen to the end user which is the transporting cost.
So, in the end, the end user will receive about 10%-15% out of the 25% produced by the solar panels. Because these losses are fixed losses, if you make a solar panel which is 75% efficient the end user will receive 40%-50% out of the 75%.
Finally, there are not enough raw materials (mostly silicon) on Earth to make enough solar panels which are only 25% efficient to cover the energy needs of Earth.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source. Currently, hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels or natural gas. Electrolyzing hydrogen from water is very expensive. We need very efficient solar panels for the hydrogen economy to start.
g e.html
Biodiesel looks more promising. There are some algae which contains 50% oil. Here's a link:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_al
The picture is not so clear. Have you heard about the petrodollar? It means that oil can only be bought with dollar. So, the world needs dollar to buy oil. It's almost like the US sells the oil to the rest of the world. This is very very good for the US. This enabled the US to have a huge debt without going bankrupt. This fact made the US the only superpower of the world and not the wonders of capitalizm.
Because there is a huge demand for dollar the US government can inflate the dollar without severe consequences which no other government can do.
Rumour says that Saddam made himself a target when he switched to Euros in November 2000. The US cannot allow OPEC to switch to Euros. That would be the end of the US economy. And it would be a severe shock to the world economy, too.
I think the cost of oil is a net gain to the US.
It's not possible because of petrodollar. Currently, oil can only be bought with dollar. So, the world needs dollar. If the USA switches to other means of energy then the dollar will be replaced with euro (most probably). Petroeuro will be born.
However, the USA has a huge debt and it can only live with this debt because of the petrodollar. Without petrodollar the monetary system of the USA will collapse which means the monetary system of the world will collapse which means the economy of the world will collapse.
Sorry, but this switching can't be done without serious economic crisis which will be much severe than the Great Depression.
At my company the management has started an MDA (Model Driven Architecture) project, because some developers presented it to them as the holy grail in software development. They use a GUI to make associations between classes and ASL for the code. They say that you are less likely to make a mistake because you code in a platform independent way (so, you do not have to pay attention to all the little details) and the translator is responsible to make the actual code.
Some of us more experienced developers do not think it is the holy grail. It looks like you can make as much mistake as in convetional languages. Also, development with a GUI (see at www.kc.com) is much more cumbersome.
Is there anyone who used MDA and ASL and has some experience about it?
You're contradicting yourself - if you can own knowledge, then you can lose knowledge. And yes - if an idea is come up with, it *is* possible that it will never be redicovered if it is lost. Unlikely? Sure. But possible.
You are right. However, IMHO the chance is so small that it does not worth giving monopoly powers to a few corporations at the expanse of the public.
Also, if you do not have faith in humans then how can you trust in the goverment? As far as I know, the goverment consists of humans, too.
And believe me, I have given quite a bit of thought and read some books on the matter. Concerning human history I think we should learn from our minstakes and one of the greatest mistakes was that the public gave power to a few men, let they be kings, senators, presidents or whatever, to control their lives.
I think you shouldn't work with patent lawyers, because what you said is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on slashdot.
Why should I read 20 or so year old outdated patents? Most patents are useless after 20 years. And if not they became public knowledge, so I do not have to search the patent database.
And I can own knowledge. If I have an idea and I do not share the idea, then it is mine. Nobody can force me to share my idea. However, if I share the idea with somebody I no longer can claim ownership on that idea and I cannot use force to prevent that somebody to use my idea.
I have to repeat myself. Knowledge cannot be lost. Do you really believe that without Einstein we do not have the Theory of General Relativity? Somebody else would have come up with it sooner or later. From the society point of view nobody is irreplaceable.
However, you are right about that I cannot do anything with my property. But it is only true because there is goverment control. I do not believe in goverment. I do not want to be controlled. It looks like you want the goverment to tell you what you can do and what you can't do.
I should remind you that according to patent lawyers you should not read any patents because if by chance you infringe on one the court may decide you commited willful infringement. How is this situation helps sharing knowledge?
Also, if a particular knowledge is mine (it is in my mind therefore it is mine) then I should do anything with it including making money from it.
This trade secret excuse also tires me. This comes from the assumption that knowledge can be lost. Knowledge cannot be lost. It is not a physical thing which can be really lost or destroyed. So, sooner or later every knowledge which kept secret become public knowledge. The only difference is that there is no goverment granted monopolies which is good for everyone.
There are many slashdotters who think patents are needed because without them the little guy is screwed. However, there is a much more fundamental problem here. Patents basically prevents someone from using his own knowledge even if the knowledge came from someone else initally.
Tell me, if preventing someone from using his own knowledge (it is his knowledge since it is in his mind) by force is not slavery then what is it?
Just be careful not to wake it.
Concerning point 2:
You are right, I made a mistake. I should write that the State itself does not want its taxpayers to go to a foreign country.
On point 3:
You are right about the original intentions behind the creating of the patent system. However, the patent system is widely abused nowadays. Applications are so vaguely described that even those in the profession cannot comprehend them.
About companies keeping their inventions secret, you imply that knowledge is scarce. This is not the case, knowledge is abundant. That's the reason for the patent system, to make knowledge atrificially scarce (for the benefit of the powerful).
...if the three points below are realized.
1. Free trade of goods. Almost done. Shipping goods from country A to country B is cheap (even if some tariffs are applied).
2. Free movement of workforce. Countries all over the world have a limitation on this. You just can't go to work in an other country. Even in the EU it is not easy (lot of paperwork) to do so. Also, language and cultural differences make a person reluctant to move.
3. Free trade of knowledge. Patents and copyrights restrict the sharing of knowlegde. They should be eliminated entirely.
Big businesses want point 1 to be realized, but do not want point 2 and 3. Until point 2 and 3 become true, outsourcing is most probably bad for everyone.
Without patents, you would have to keep your ideas a secret to protect them, then other won't benefit from them. If others can build on your ideas shouldn't you be entitled to a peice of it if you wanted it?
You imply that if somebody come up with an idea then nobody else can come up with the same idea. From the society point of view everybody is replacable. Even Mozart, Newton, Einstein, etc. If Einstein had died at the age of 5 then someone else would have come up with the theory of relativity. Knowledge, unlike physical items, cannot be lost forever, it will be rediscovered later.
Knowledge is not scarce. Patents create artificial scarcity to benefit the few. Patents are not the creation of market (natural) forces. They are the creation of the powerful who would like to extend their power over everybody else.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
I am tired to hear this lame excuse over and over again. If the inventor fears that his idea will be stolen then he should keep it secret or sign an NDA with whom he tells about it. But keeping me from using the knowledge in my head by force is outrageous.
Also, patenting something does not mean you will be getting any compensation for it. If your idea is not marketable then you will get nothing even if it took you years to develop it.
Let's see the example of Dyson and his bagless vacuum cleaner. It took Dyson years to develop it and after that he patented his implementation. It looks like circumventing the patent is not an easy task because only LG could do it (at least in Hungary, only LG offers bagless vacuum cleaners, and LG most probably patented its implementation, too).
Do I benefit from that patent as a customer? Can I buy a cheap bagless vaccum clearer? Is there competiton which drives the price lower and lower? No. Patents just benefit the few at the expense of all others. In the hands of the powerful patents mean easy money and prevent the competition from arising.
Patents also discourage improving an idea. Though you can patent the improvement, you can't use it without paying a license fee to the owner of the original.
It is said the patents drive innovation. Do you really believe without patents innovation will stop? It is possible that the pace of innovation will be slower, but that may not be a bad thing, because society would be more time to adapt the changes.
I have read many comments which supports patents because patents defend the little guy. However, this argument is completely false.
First, as I read in a comment a few days ago, if the little guy has a patent on something, then most probably the big guy has several patents on things which the little guy uses. Cross licensing comes into effect, so the big guy is the winner here.
Second, this little guy vs. big guy is only happening because the entry to the market is not free. And it is not free because patents and other IP laws restrict entry to the market. Without them entry to the market would be much easier, so there would be much more firms on the market competing with each other than now.
Third, patents create a kind of slavery. You have an idea, you patent it, then tell about it to somebody. However, that somebody cannot use your idea because it is patented. It can be said that person thoughts is owned by you. We can call this situation 'Metal Slavery'.