Thank you for relating that interesting analogy for us
Sure, if the aliens pay the same wages (tons of gold) to the 100 extra-lucky humans, they would become the most richest 0.1% amongst the 7 or so billion inhabitants on this planet
But, in the case we are talking about, paying the same US wage scale to those who work for them, even if they are living in Timbuktu, will make them relatively rich, but not super-rich, surely not the 0.1% most richest amongst all the other "Timbuktuans" (sorry, I don't know the spelling of the noun for people who live in Timbuktu)
I guess you can add "ad hominem" to your list of used logical fallacies.
Do you have a specific counter argument that is not also a verbal slur to bring to the table, or is this debate over?
AFAIAC, this debate is over
There is no point of continue this discussion when they keep on putting words in my mouth, and when I pointed out the obvious to them, they came back with stuffs like "implied", "interpret", "inferred", and when I pointed to them that there was no such thing in what I had said, they retort in every which way they can, including the use of verbal diarrhea
It's a waste of time trying to make sense to those whose neural cells can't function properly
Does it seem to you that a jacka** such as Assad is going to pay any attention to "Stop, or we'll say stop again!"? Show me one instance where it's made ANY difference
In the case of Syria, It's rather like "Nice cat, nice nice little cat, please stop playing with those goddamn rodents"
Please read my messages again, if you have the time
I did not say whether judge Lucy Koh "might not able to be fair"
I said that I am concerned whether or not judge Lucy Koh can be fair, and how she would conduct herself
This is getting to the realm of splitting hair - but please, stop putting words into my mouth - I said what I said, and I stand by what I said - as for other things that you or others want to implied, or inferred, or whatever, they are all pure conjectures from your own minds
Besides, Sammy is fucked. Their internal communications basically said, "copy the iPhone. Now. Before we become irrelevant.". That's fucking damning.
If you know Koreans, you would know that one special Korean characteristic is that they are one of the most stubborn race in this world
If you ever talk to any ship crew or flight crew that had Korean captains, you would understand why ship crews / flight crews all over the world are very scared of Korean captains - even when there is a huge storm brewing in front of the vessel/plane, the Korean captain would still give the "go straight ahead" order
Even after Google warned them of their products look too much like that from Apple, Samsung still went ahead and did what they did
It sounds like your argument is because this judge ruled fairly against Samsung the first time, she is going to come in the 2nd time just assuming they are guilty of whatever
See the emphasis above?
"It sounds like..." does not hold water in this discussion
What I said, and I believed I have stated it clearly, more than once, was that I am concerned about the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, and her ability to be fair
I never said, and never meant, just because that judge Koh ruled against Samsung in a previous case, she must be "BIASED"
No, what I meant, to put it in one simple sentence, is this-
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
It has nothing to do with any "implication" of whether or not Judge Lucy Koh is "BIAS" or not
It has everything to do with the perception of fairness
I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh
Yes, that is what I said
I do not know where you learn your logic from, the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship at all
I can be concern of your conduct, or the conduct of a child, but that does not mean I am concerned with your "BIAS" or the child's "BIAS"
I was in the Silicon Valley when the thing got started and I benefited handsomely
IMHO, the "Silicon Valley Phenomenon" is a one-time happening
It happened because of many factors
* The concentration of critical mass of coherent talents - mostly comprised of remnants of the hippies with their Groovy mindset, and earlier batch of the baby boomers who were, in one way or another, influenced by the hippies culture
* It occurred at a time when the "change culture" finally arrived at the tech scene - with hobbyists earnestly believed that they could build their own gadgets with solders and breadboards
* And the Silicon Valley happened to provide a venue, the place, for the talents to gather and trade their ideas
We also need to understand that the Silicon Valley phenomenon occurred way before Internet - which means, people _still_ had to congregate in ONE PHYSICAL PLACE in order to trade ideas
With Internet, people no longer need to gather physically in one place in order to trade ideas
There have been many attempts in repeating the "Silicon Valley Success" all over the world - from Boston USA to East London, UK to Japan to even third world countries such as Malaysia, but none ever achieve same level of success as Silicon Valley
Why?
Simply because there is no need for yet-another Silicon Valley
All I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, - the same judge who ruled against Samsung, in a very closely related case, for Apple, presiding over this case, in which Apple and Samsung _are_ the contenders
And let me repeat - it's YOU who uttered the word "BIAS", not me
Now both M$ and IBM have filed petition to the court in asking that patent agreement between them and Samsung be sealed
Pardon me, but I do not understand
Patents are there to protect the patent holder - and patents are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC so that the public at large know to what extend a particular patent covers and in what way the patent is considered as "novel" when it was granted
Patents that are sealed under court order only mean one thing - that they, the patent holder(s) do not want the public at large to know the existence of their patents.
If that is the case - then their patents might as well be void - because if the public at large can't know about their patents, the public wouldn't know when, of if, they have infringed on their patents
What M$ is doing - particularly, hiding patents from the public view - should be declared illegal by the court
If a patent holder wants to hide their patent, they should not be granted that particular patent, period
Slashdot Mirror
We were there before the open-walleted investors
Who do you think gave birth to the VC concept?
Hint: Sure ain't from the folks in Wall Street
Workers in different areas do different kinds of work, so they earn different wages.
Not according to TFA tho
The workers do similar work, online, but are being paid differently, depending on where they live
FYI, judge Lucy Koh is not a Korean-American
She is a Chinese-American
Get your facts right, please
a real bad cough you got
hope you get well soon
Thank you for relating that interesting analogy for us
Sure, if the aliens pay the same wages (tons of gold) to the 100 extra-lucky humans, they would become the most richest 0.1% amongst the 7 or so billion inhabitants on this planet
But, in the case we are talking about, paying the same US wage scale to those who work for them, even if they are living in Timbuktu, will make them relatively rich, but not super-rich, surely not the 0.1% most richest amongst all the other "Timbuktuans" (sorry, I don't know the spelling of the noun for people who live in Timbuktu)
Bankrupting yourself building inappropriate sticks isn't "playing it safe", it's pork.
True, it's pork, but it's pork with jobs.
That makes it a welcome pork, especially during this climate of high unemployment
I guess you can add "ad hominem" to your list of used logical fallacies.
Do you have a specific counter argument that is not also a verbal slur to bring to the table, or is this debate over?
AFAIAC, this debate is over
There is no point of continue this discussion when they keep on putting words in my mouth, and when I pointed out the obvious to them, they came back with stuffs like "implied", "interpret", "inferred", and when I pointed to them that there was no such thing in what I had said, they retort in every which way they can, including the use of verbal diarrhea
It's a waste of time trying to make sense to those whose neural cells can't function properly
Does it seem to you that a jacka** such as Assad is going to pay any attention to "Stop, or we'll say stop again!"? Show me one instance where it's made ANY difference
In the case of Syria, It's rather like "Nice cat, nice nice little cat, please stop playing with those goddamn rodents"
And no, I won't use the "P" word
Your average street cop isn't out there to protect you, they are out there to serve the interests of the government.
I beg to differ
The average stret cop isn't out there to serve the interests of the government - rather, his or her main interest is to serve herself / himself
As for secondary interests, maybe for local business concerns or drug lords, or whoever can pull the right strings for the local street beat cops
Please read my messages again, if you have the time
I did not say whether judge Lucy Koh "might not able to be fair"
I said that I am concerned whether or not judge Lucy Koh can be fair, and how she would conduct herself
This is getting to the realm of splitting hair - but please, stop putting words into my mouth - I said what I said, and I stand by what I said - as for other things that you or others want to implied, or inferred, or whatever, they are all pure conjectures from your own minds
We need diplomacy, not bombs.
In an ideal world, diplomacy should lead the way
Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world
In this world we live in, talking softly while carrying a big stick is still the most practical way of doing things
Besides, Sammy is fucked. Their internal communications basically said, "copy the iPhone. Now. Before we become irrelevant.". That's fucking damning.
If you know Koreans, you would know that one special Korean characteristic is that they are one of the most stubborn race in this world
If you ever talk to any ship crew or flight crew that had Korean captains, you would understand why ship crews / flight crews all over the world are very scared of Korean captains - even when there is a huge storm brewing in front of the vessel/plane, the Korean captain would still give the "go straight ahead" order
Even after Google warned them of their products look too much like that from Apple, Samsung still went ahead and did what they did
It sounds like your argument is because this judge ruled fairly against Samsung the first time, she is going to come in the 2nd time just assuming they are guilty of whatever
See the emphasis above?
" It sounds like
What I said, and I believed I have stated it clearly, more than once, was that I am concerned about the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, and her ability to be fair
I never said, and never meant, just because that judge Koh ruled against Samsung in a previous case, she must be "BIASED"
No, what I meant, to put it in one simple sentence, is this-
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
It has nothing to do with any "implication" of whether or not Judge Lucy Koh is "BIAS" or not
It has everything to do with the perception of fairness
You asked if anyone thought the judge could be fair ...
Yes, I did ask that
Nope, that "implied" thing is a conjecture in your own mind.
I never said "BIAS" and never meant it
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
I never talked about, or implied, or whatnot, in regards to "BIAS"
I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh
Yes, that is what I said
I do not know where you learn your logic from, the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship at all
I can be concern of your conduct, or the conduct of a child, but that does not mean I am concerned with your "BIAS" or the child's "BIAS"
Or perhaps you should re-take English 101
I've been in this field for a long-long time
I was in the Silicon Valley when the thing got started and I benefited handsomely
IMHO, the "Silicon Valley Phenomenon" is a one-time happening
It happened because of many factors
* The concentration of critical mass of coherent talents - mostly comprised of remnants of the hippies with their Groovy mindset, and earlier batch of the baby boomers who were, in one way or another, influenced by the hippies culture
* It occurred at a time when the "change culture" finally arrived at the tech scene - with hobbyists earnestly believed that they could build their own gadgets with solders and breadboards
* And the Silicon Valley happened to provide a venue, the place, for the talents to gather and trade their ideas
We also need to understand that the Silicon Valley phenomenon occurred way before Internet - which means, people _still_ had to congregate in ONE PHYSICAL PLACE in order to trade ideas
With Internet, people no longer need to gather physically in one place in order to trade ideas
There have been many attempts in repeating the "Silicon Valley Success" all over the world - from Boston USA to East London, UK to Japan to even third world countries such as Malaysia, but none ever achieve same level of success as Silicon Valley
Why?
Simply because there is no need for yet-another Silicon Valley
The whole thing was fine until the "Uwingu" name, and its Swahili origin
It's getting tiresome to read so many things in the same foreign language - as if Swahili is the only legitimate foreign language in this world
How about the Persian language? How about the Vietnamese language? How about the Tahitian language?
To me, the use of yet-another-Swahili-word shows the lack of imagination, and/or the laziness therewith, of those 'scientists' in charge
Or are you just assuming BIAS!!
Did I say anything about "BIAS"??
That "BIAS" word was from YOU, not me
All I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, - the same judge who ruled against Samsung, in a very closely related case, for Apple, presiding over this case, in which Apple and Samsung _are_ the contenders
And let me repeat - it's YOU who uttered the word "BIAS", not me
Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?
Yep, the very same judge Lucy Koh, ruling against Samsung, on the a case which is very very close to this one
I dunno about you, but when I read that I see exploitation all over it
I may not be a genius, but at least I do not post the following message:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3014151&cid=40822897
Let me say it again: Slashdot is not a KKK inspired site for you to spew your racist venom
Get back to where you were from and stop spewing your racist diatribe here
Isn't the judge, - Lucy Koh, - the same judge that grant an injunction for Apple, against Samsung ?
As illustrated in Slashdot's report on http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/07/02/0241212/samsung-appeals-apples-injunction-against-galaxy-nexus
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
You don't understand Chinese culture ...
BTW, who the hell makes you the expert on all things Chinese?
This is Slashdot, this is not some KKK-inspired site where you can blast your racial toxic waste
Go back to where you belong, you racist scumbag !!
Now both M$ and IBM have filed petition to the court in asking that patent agreement between them and Samsung be sealed
Pardon me, but I do not understand
Patents are there to protect the patent holder - and patents are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC so that the public at large know to what extend a particular patent covers and in what way the patent is considered as "novel" when it was granted
Patents that are sealed under court order only mean one thing - that they, the patent holder(s) do not want the public at large to know the existence of their patents.
If that is the case - then their patents might as well be void - because if the public at large can't know about their patents, the public wouldn't know when, of if, they have infringed on their patents
What M$ is doing - particularly, hiding patents from the public view - should be declared illegal by the court
If a patent holder wants to hide their patent, they should not be granted that particular patent, period
The Chinese are useless
Wow, and I never ever thought I would read something like that on a respectable site such as Slashdot