Yeah, but you don't put up an entry saying that person X has an invalid CC number. You claim a debt. I come along and dispute it and it vanishes (or else I get to sue you because you don't have any proof of the debt and you affirmed it anyway).
Yeah, well as a cop you should know what you're allowed to demand and not do stupid things like arresting the guy who called you because he was being kidnapped.
If you believe in the power of a free market, then you should understand that the government should never be in a position of enforcing a monopoly, unless it somehow benefits society as a whole.
Free markets exist only as an abstract concept, and they're not always desirable. The government should regulate monopolies where it makes sense; I'm happy with the patent system as written - I think the problems stem from a lack of operational support and too loose policies on granting patents
It is an accepted economic theory that any level of profit above break-even is significant incentive to pursure a course of action. If 10x investment is not enough profit motive, then I think you are misleading yourself about the nature of why we allow this sort of protection.
This assumes that most research leads to profitable inventions, when it's probably not nearly that. You have to pay for all the research you do, not just the stuff that works. I still maintain that you're suffering from a fundamental misconception - the gub isn't in the business of enforcing morals (which is what determining a moral amount of profit is). It's in the business of protecting us from the predators among us and regulating companies the minimum amount for the same reasons.
Most women I know care more about fashion and hobbies than tech. A lot of the geeks I know have tech as a hobby. The whole Burberry, Prada, etc stuff is just wild speculation as to why women don't go for tech. I actually have no clue why that is and neither, I wager, do you.
Classic example: watch a bunch of ill-behaved kids when a parent walks in the room and they fall all over themselves trying to point out what the others did wrong.
So that's why nobody likes a snitch...
And also why blacks in the ghetto don't talk to the cops when they see someone get killed.
How is this a stupid male idea? It is quite common for my wife to come to me the day after her period and apologize for being insane for the past few days.
No, you missed it - he meant that periods (.) induce insanity. Real geeks don't punctuate.
None of this involves men. If women want to go wrench on their cars, that's just fine. It's not the men telling them they should be out shopping instead.
Sure, they can ask for anything they want to. Doesn't mean they'll get it. CC is a private business - they can ask you to leave or they can hold you for the cops if they see you steal something (and maintain contact as you walk to the entrance).
How would the world be today if some of the great american inventions stopped inventing because they knew they, their family and the 5 shell companies they founded can all get fat off the riches of a patent on lightbulbs?
I dunno, ask Edison. Of course, he didn't get rich off just the light bulb, but a lot of other things his employees developed.
frankly I only have a right to make money off my invention, not to become ludicrously rich.
You have neither. You have the right to try, and congress is empowered to grant time limited monopolies to inventors, which helps a fair bit. Making a mint off of some idea of yours is highly unlikely (I'd like to see an example or two, personally). You generally get rich by selling something to a few million people, which takes time to set up. In the meantime, your competitors are trying to take your invention and reproduce the effect a different way. The current system isn't perfect, but this change doesn't address its flaws.
"profit" is a perfectly sensible way to measure the value of the patent in returning on its investment to promote its "science" or its "art". If you're going to argue, do so. You haven't.
Okay then, you're basically taking the most effective patents (the ones that make money hand over fist) and handing them to all comers. This means that whenever you patent a really good idea, the big boys can just take it and rest assured that your maximum payout is 10x the investment cost. This also means that drug research will grind to a halt.
$1.5M is plenty of money to do what you're talking about.
It won't help you if you're fighting GE.
The audit requirements aren't nearly as onerous as unrestricted patent monopolies.
Stated without support
We're talking about preserving a patent monopoly system.
Which is just fine. Want to tear something down? Knock copyright back to something reasonable.
If inventors don't want to take on even some costs of protecting their monopolies, they're welcome to compete without them.
That's called trade secrets and leads to a guild system. No thank you.
You're tying the extractable value of a device to its development cost. That makes no sense. Also, you have to consider that $1.5M isn't enough to set up a business capable of dealing with the existing giants and, for existing companies, you'd have to account for how much of the development and profit was attributable to a specific patent. This is madness and will just tie companies down with onerous audit requirements.
Yeah, gotta love absolute limits on how profitable a device can be. Sounds like a great way to let someone get steamrollered on their billion dollar idea that cost $150k to research.
I don't need to come up with another argument. I need to understand your. And that is the jist of what your saying. It might not be what you want to say but it is how it is coming off.
What I said was that freedom is dangerous. This doesn't mean you go jump off a building so you can be free.
It doesn't have to fix anything. It has to make it unappealing to exploit.
That would be fixing something. It doesn't do a damn thing except exmploy people to waste time searching for water bottles and making you take your shoes off.
And to the point you seem to not be able to visualize, it fixes the problem of people wanting to use those devices to harm us.
Yeah right. People want to harm us because we stomp around and shoot up their neighbors.
I mean you were attacking ever aspect of the chemical to settle on "I don't want my cloths stained". Well, I can respect that. I don't think I totally understand it but I can respect it.
No, it's one dimension of why I don't want the airport security to do yet another stupid thing in the name of 'security'.
My intended point was that if you weren't demanding everything be done your way or not at all, they wouldn't look like incompetent monkeys to you.
Yeah, well I don't demand it. I simply observe what they do. Has the TSA Ever stopped a terrorist?
Would you be willing to forgo brakes or seatbelts on your car because with freedom there needs to be a certain amount of deaths?
That's absurd. The fact is that a free society leaves open possibility of murderers doesn't mean that all safety measures are bad. Try to come up with a better argument.
I'm sure your extra 20 or 2 hours minutes in line at the airport is the most important freedom in the world and you will beg to differ.
Or rather, it doesn't actually fix anything, so why bother?
Jesus, we are talking about doing something that hasn't been suggested outside this discussion and you are wanting to toss it all in the garbage because you don't like the application of the chemical?
Pretty much. If it were to stain my clothes, I have no recourse, therefore, I don't want it sprayed on.
Maybe the incompetent monkeys wouldn't be incompetent monkeys if you would come off your high horse.
Yeah, that was me. I hired a bunch of goons to work in the TSA. Sorry about that.
Lol.. So should we take down the metal detectors and all because the deaths arising from shooting in public places like court houses or hijacked airplanes are far less then the number of people that Die from car accidents?
Don't be a jackass. I'm saying that the security reaction to 9/11 is almost wholly innefective and that it should be scrapped. I'm also saying that Al Queda is a pissant.
The idea is to not let the death occur in the first place is there is something that could be done to stop them. Not to accept the deaths and move on because more people get killed driving home from work.
Since that's how this stuff is being justified, then yeah, that's how I'll tear it down. The fact is, democracy is not safe and the price of freedom is that people will occasionally kill others. There are things we can do to protect from random thugs, but a lot of the proposed actions erode our freedom and will lead to more people being shot by the cops.
But do we have them as convenient to use and as easy to read as a spray that turns a drastically different color if the explosive forms are detected?
Wipe down bag with cotton cloth, stick in machine, get a readout. Not terrible complicated. Doesn't stain your clothes, either.
I don't believe that you are taking something developed by th Israelis and suggested as being able to help in Iraq as America losing it's balls.
I fully expect it to be used in airports by incompetent monkeys and for it to be justified with terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you don't put up an entry saying that person X has an invalid CC number. You claim a debt. I come along and dispute it and it vanishes (or else I get to sue you because you don't have any proof of the debt and you affirmed it anyway).
Cute, but you can't report someone because their CC# failed to work.
Yeah, well as a cop you should know what you're allowed to demand and not do stupid things like arresting the guy who called you because he was being kidnapped.
If you believe in the power of a free market, then you should understand that the government should never be in a position of enforcing a monopoly, unless it somehow benefits society as a whole.
Free markets exist only as an abstract concept, and they're not always desirable. The government should regulate monopolies where it makes sense; I'm happy with the patent system as written - I think the problems stem from a lack of operational support and too loose policies on granting patents
It is an accepted economic theory that any level of profit above break-even is significant incentive to pursure a course of action. If 10x investment is not enough profit motive, then I think you are misleading yourself about the nature of why we allow this sort of protection.
This assumes that most research leads to profitable inventions, when it's probably not nearly that. You have to pay for all the research you do, not just the stuff that works. I still maintain that you're suffering from a fundamental misconception - the gub isn't in the business of enforcing morals (which is what determining a moral amount of profit is). It's in the business of protecting us from the predators among us and regulating companies the minimum amount for the same reasons.
too bad SubieGal's taken (I think).
If you're trying to get in there by going into IT, yu're doing it wrong.
Most women I know care more about fashion and hobbies than tech. A lot of the geeks I know have tech as a hobby. The whole Burberry, Prada, etc stuff is just wild speculation as to why women don't go for tech. I actually have no clue why that is and neither, I wager, do you.
Classic example: watch a bunch of ill-behaved kids when a parent walks in the room and they fall all over themselves trying to point out what the others did wrong.
How is this a stupid male idea? It is quite common for my wife to come to me the day after her period and apologize for being insane for the past few days.
No, you missed it - he meant that periods (.) induce insanity. Real geeks don't punctuate.
How many men want to sacrifice their absurd, even antiquated perceptions of women?
Are you sugesting that women don't care about fashion? Doesn't seem to be the case anywhere I work.
None of this involves men. If women want to go wrench on their cars, that's just fine. It's not the men telling them they should be out shopping instead.
Sorry, got a meeting. Good luck with your box and all.
Most geeks I meet don't really discriminate - if they're assholes, it's to everyone.
It's not like I'm okay with smelly guys. All I really demand is a base level of hygiene. Most people can manage that.
Sure, they can ask for anything they want to. Doesn't mean they'll get it. CC is a private business - they can ask you to leave or they can hold you for the cops if they see you steal something (and maintain contact as you walk to the entrance).
Here is a clue: When asked to leave, leave. When the police show up and ask you to leave, leave. Don't resist arrest.
Did you read the same story I did? They didn't ask him to leave, they held him illegally.
I think you aren't getting his point.
I get it just fine. I just disagree.
How would the world be today if some of the great american inventions stopped inventing because they knew they, their family and the 5 shell companies they founded can all get fat off the riches of a patent on lightbulbs?
I dunno, ask Edison. Of course, he didn't get rich off just the light bulb, but a lot of other things his employees developed.
frankly I only have a right to make money off my invention, not to become ludicrously rich.
You have neither. You have the right to try, and congress is empowered to grant time limited monopolies to inventors, which helps a fair bit. Making a mint off of some idea of yours is highly unlikely (I'd like to see an example or two, personally). You generally get rich by selling something to a few million people, which takes time to set up. In the meantime, your competitors are trying to take your invention and reproduce the effect a different way. The current system isn't perfect, but this change doesn't address its flaws.
"profit" is a perfectly sensible way to measure the value of the patent in returning on its investment to promote its "science" or its "art". If you're going to argue, do so. You haven't.
Okay then, you're basically taking the most effective patents (the ones that make money hand over fist) and handing them to all comers. This means that whenever you patent a really good idea, the big boys can just take it and rest assured that your maximum payout is 10x the investment cost. This also means that drug research will grind to a halt.
$1.5M is plenty of money to do what you're talking about.
It won't help you if you're fighting GE.
The audit requirements aren't nearly as onerous as unrestricted patent monopolies.
Stated without support
We're talking about preserving a patent monopoly system.
Which is just fine. Want to tear something down? Knock copyright back to something reasonable.
If inventors don't want to take on even some costs of protecting their monopolies, they're welcome to compete without them.
That's called trade secrets and leads to a guild system. No thank you.
You're tying the extractable value of a device to its development cost. That makes no sense. Also, you have to consider that $1.5M isn't enough to set up a business capable of dealing with the existing giants and, for existing companies, you'd have to account for how much of the development and profit was attributable to a specific patent. This is madness and will just tie companies down with onerous audit requirements.
Yeah, gotta love absolute limits on how profitable a device can be. Sounds like a great way to let someone get steamrollered on their billion dollar idea that cost $150k to research.
I don't need to come up with another argument. I need to understand your. And that is the jist of what your saying. It might not be what you want to say but it is how it is coming off.
What I said was that freedom is dangerous. This doesn't mean you go jump off a building so you can be free.
It doesn't have to fix anything. It has to make it unappealing to exploit.
That would be fixing something. It doesn't do a damn thing except exmploy people to waste time searching for water bottles and making you take your shoes off.
And to the point you seem to not be able to visualize, it fixes the problem of people wanting to use those devices to harm us.
Yeah right. People want to harm us because we stomp around and shoot up their neighbors.
I mean you were attacking ever aspect of the chemical to settle on "I don't want my cloths stained". Well, I can respect that. I don't think I totally understand it but I can respect it.
No, it's one dimension of why I don't want the airport security to do yet another stupid thing in the name of 'security'.
My intended point was that if you weren't demanding everything be done your way or not at all, they wouldn't look like incompetent monkeys to you.
Yeah, well I don't demand it. I simply observe what they do. Has the TSA Ever stopped a terrorist?
Would you be willing to forgo brakes or seatbelts on your car because with freedom there needs to be a certain amount of deaths?
That's absurd. The fact is that a free society leaves open possibility of murderers doesn't mean that all safety measures are bad. Try to come up with a better argument.
I'm sure your extra 20 or 2 hours minutes in line at the airport is the most important freedom in the world and you will beg to differ.
Or rather, it doesn't actually fix anything, so why bother?
Jesus, we are talking about doing something that hasn't been suggested outside this discussion and you are wanting to toss it all in the garbage because you don't like the application of the chemical?
Pretty much. If it were to stain my clothes, I have no recourse, therefore, I don't want it sprayed on.
Maybe the incompetent monkeys wouldn't be incompetent monkeys if you would come off your high horse.
Yeah, that was me. I hired a bunch of goons to work in the TSA. Sorry about that.
Lol.. So should we take down the metal detectors and all because the deaths arising from shooting in public places like court houses or hijacked airplanes are far less then the number of people that Die from car accidents?
Don't be a jackass. I'm saying that the security reaction to 9/11 is almost wholly innefective and that it should be scrapped. I'm also saying that Al Queda is a pissant.
The idea is to not let the death occur in the first place is there is something that could be done to stop them. Not to accept the deaths and move on because more people get killed driving home from work.
Since that's how this stuff is being justified, then yeah, that's how I'll tear it down. The fact is, democracy is not safe and the price of freedom is that people will occasionally kill others. There are things we can do to protect from random thugs, but a lot of the proposed actions erode our freedom and will lead to more people being shot by the cops.
But do we have them as convenient to use and as easy to read as a spray that turns a drastically different color if the explosive forms are detected?
Wipe down bag with cotton cloth, stick in machine, get a readout. Not terrible complicated. Doesn't stain your clothes, either.
I don't believe that you are taking something developed by th Israelis and suggested as being able to help in Iraq as America losing it's balls.
I fully expect it to be used in airports by incompetent monkeys and for it to be justified with terrorists.
You have to actually be charged with the offense to have standing.
I'm not sure what your saying here.
TCAP has had the cops using swat teams to take down the perverts they entrap, even though they are, as a rule more pathetic than they are dangerous.
No, you challenge it in court. that is the way to contest it without breaking the law.
You have to show standing- this means you can't protest the law until you're punished for breaking it.