I can guarantee you there isn't nearly the level of accountability in privately held corporations.
That's simply not true. When a company fails to deliver the goods, it goes out of business.
Generally, the company that failed to deliver the good goes back and fixes the mistake, free of charge. That obviously isn't an option here.
I didn't get fired when I caused ~$30,000 of damage to a customer's piece of equipment. My companies attitude was basically "learn from your mistake". And then we went and repaired the damage.
And I doubt my company will be going out of business anytime soon, we're well over 100 years old and one of the largest companies on Earth.
Actually if you want to bring Jesus and friends into a piracy discussion, the loves and fishes thing is a much better fit.
Jesus and pals had a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. Jesus then shared it with his multitude of followers, and miraculously it was enough to feed hundreds of people. So somehow Jesus duplicated the food matter.
Since the multitudes he fed got to skip buying a meal, I'm sure many fishermen and bakers lost sales that day.
There are still people who do not understand that "obviousness", as regards patents, is based entirely upon evidence found in prior art, not some intangible concept of being "trivial" or "simple".
That's the problem, and exactly what we are complaining about. There should be a test for obviousness, and neccessarily it would be a subjective call on how simple or trivial something is. But right now, the patent office can't seem to be bothered to reject obvious or trivial solutions, and locking up the obvious or trivial solutions so that only one company can use simple neccessary tools to get stuff done is a major problem.
Prior art is a test for originality, not obviousness. We need to test for both.
...wouldn't you rather be outside and biking than watching the same old dreary news in the morning?
Actually I'd rather sleep all the way to 5:45am, which is the latest I can wake up, shower, brush teeth, etc and still make it to work on time. 5:45 is already way to early to be awake, but 7:00am is pretty much the universal start time for work everywhere.
7. Do crossword puzzles or something that engages your brain most every day. You meet a lot of cute girls that way...
What am I missing here? Doing crossword puzzles is a solitary activity that you usually do in your own home. How does cute girls figure into it? Unless you're taking the crossword puzzles somewhere that a lot of cute girls are, in which case what do you need the puzzles for?
They told him he couldn't use the first room, and he didn't.
They told him he couldn't use the second room, and he didn't.
They told him he couldn't use the third room, and he didn't.
They never had the balls to come right out and say he couldn't give the lecture at all, so he just went into a public area of the university and started talking. Where's the insubordination?
You are obtaining something without paying for it.
This is a big part of the problem. "Obtaining something without paying for it" is not wrong. Theft is wrong because the other person lost something. The fact that the thief gained something is in no way morally wrong, only the fact that they caused loss to someone else.
If I could make the world understand one thing, this would be it. I HATE the puritanical ethic that suggests you should have to lose something for everything you gain. That is a necessary evil when goods are scarce, but it should not be applied as a universal moral truth.
Why does the judge feel the the "public interest" is somehow limited to heath and safety concerns or criminal activity?
Apple wants to keep new products a secret because it is part of their business strategy. If people knew about upcoming new products, they might, for exaple, delay buying a new iPod six months to wait for the new model to come out. Fine, that defines Apple's interest in keeping the secret. Apple benifits financially from the secret.
But what about me? I want to minimize my spending and get the most value for my purchases. Apple keeps the secret from me so that I will make inferior buying decisions out of ignorance. Apple's finacial benifit comes from my financial loss.
My personal finances are definately central to my wellbeing in this society so I would say anything that could save me money is of vital interest to me. And I'm a member of the general public, so I'd say this is a "public interest". Why does Apple's right to try to maximize its profits outway my right to try to minimize my expeditures?
You do realize the documents were completely fake right?
Um, that's the point. The fact that the documents were completely fake was revealed by a blog that put online comparisons of the CBS docs with the same document typed into MS Word.
Where do people get this idea? I haven't noticed any noise from wind turbines at all (though I admit they haven't let me work on any yet). Wind turbines spin at, what, 20rpm? (I know the generators spin at 1200rpm but the blades connect through a serious reduction gear first.) Go to Palm Springs, get as close as you can to the wind farm without trespassing. You can't hear anything!
The U.S. government is saying it could be from a forest fire? Living in southern California, I was almost inside a forest fire last year. I don't remeber it causing any 2 mile wide mushroom clouds.
Both IP and physical properties are only owned (property) because the laws say that they can be.
That's incorrect. Physical objects neccesarily have an owner, whoever possesses the object at that time. Now who is the rightful owner is a matter created by law, but it is a fact that physical objects do have an owner (ligitimate or illigitimate) unless they are abandoned in the wilderness or something.
Re:the whole IP issue is invalid
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
The public decided that wanton copying of another's work without recompense is not what it wants.
No, you've missed the point. Going by an informal count of the opinions posted here and elsewhere online, and the popularity of file sharing, etc. it is quite clear that the public does want unlimited sharing abilities, but the corporate powers and their bought congress persons reuse to listen to us.
I've been stuck in hotels in Hong Kong and Malaysia. It is boring. But watching other people be bored is even worse. Why do I need a movie to show me what bordom is like? I watched the DVD because I was already bored and hoped to aleviate my boredom.
Plus, these characters take bordom to a whole new level. They seem to be even more bored by their normal lives and don't want to go back, at least until the guy whispers whatever he said and deus-ex-machina suddenly life is smiles and happiness as they leave, never to see each other again!
Could somebody please tell me what I was enjoy/be entertained/learn from Lost in Translation? Personnally I want to sue the film makers to get those hours of my life back.
Summary: Two people in unhappy marriages are bored to tears in Tokoyo. We know they're lives are boring because the director bores us to tears watching them do nothing. The fall in love (but never consumate it) and are dreading going back to their normal lives. Suddenly at the last second, the guy wispers something (inaudible) to the girl and they both go magically smiley happy back to thier normal lives.
Other than a few tame chuckles at the Japanese and their trouble with English, it was the most boring, pointless movie ever.
ah, everyone I've agrued with this about before has trotted out a qutoe from a 1917 version of Webster Dictionary showing that beg used to mean "assume". This is a new (and still weird) definition. Since when does beg mean "make a beggar of"?
Well I'm not neccesarrily saying it true, but it would make logical sense. The evolutionary advantage would be making human clans more effeciant by dividing the labor of surviving into 2 specialized castes. I'm pretty sure early humans of either sex did not survive except as part of organized clans that were heavily dependant on each other.
I've never understood where this stereotype comes from (the stereotype does exist though). In my (anectotal) experience at college, women were almost always much better at theoretical math then men (although men seemed to have an easier time applying what math they do know in practical application).
This is espesially true of calculus and differential equations. I've known some downright ditzsy girls who could solve diff eqs effortlessly while its rare to find a man who could do more than crank out enough partial credit on the exams to pass the diff eq course.
I remember once one of my friends was tutoring a group of yourger EE students on basic circuit theory. He was teaching phasor calculations for RLC circuits. The guys were cranking along, not really even writing out any equations (just solving the simple multiplication/division in their heads for each part of the circuit). One of the girls protested that she "didn't get it" and asked "Why can't we just set up a differential equation?" The guys all scoffed that it would be rediculously hard to solve a circuit that way. So my friend (the tutor) set up a new circuit on the board. The guys all proceeded to solve the problem by phasor analysis. The girls solved it in approximately the same amount of time using differential equations!
You just figured out the secret, Mr. AC, women prefer assholes. Actually, they refer to it as being "confident" or "assertive" but its exactly what we call "being a jerk".
Once I figuered that secret out, it didn't take long for me to finally have some success with women. Including my current girlfriend of 6 years.
Since being an asshole is a bit unnatural, I'll give you a couple tips. There's no need to be dishonest (in fact, your being brutally honest when being a jerk). And there's no need to belittle or abuse girls emotionally. Just focus on what you want (sex). If she resists then be rude and demanding. Either she'll give in and enjoy it (which as you know, never happens with the nice guy) or there was never a chance anyway and your better off not wasting time on her.
I really think guys of my generation and younger are seriously at a disadvantage because we were brought up primarily by our divorcee mothers in a world where "feminism" is the accepted fact. Women still instictively respond to "assertive" men while we've grown up thinking that its evil to treat women as anything other than objects of chaste worship.
Look, even if you accept an archaic definition of the word beg (to assume) as still current (which it isn't) the phrase (as used in logic) still doesn't make sense. You're not assuming the question, you're assuming the answer to the question. So the phrase (in logic) should be "Assumes (or begs, if you must) the answer."
But even if you accept the logic falacy phrase as semsible (which it isn't) that still doesn't preclude other gramatically and semantically correct usage of the phrase, such as "That begs (urgently pleas for) the question [to be asked]: {insert question here}."
Just because, say, "power triangle" refers to the vector diagram of real, reactive, and apparent power in electronics doesn't mean sombody couldn't refer to a three-sided battery pack, or a group of three nearby power plants as a "power triangle".
Why can't you put Honda engines in Hundai cars? I mean, they might not fit very well or whatever, but if someone made the neccessary adapters/modifications to put one in I'm pretty sure it would be legal. I know car-ethusiast types sometimes put engines from different car models into thier cars.
This fiduciary responsibility excuse is probably the main thing we should put a stop to.
When you buy stock, nowhere does the company sign a contract saying they will do everything legally possible to increase the value of that stock. In fact, you are generally warned by the stock brokers many times over that there are no gauranties that the stock will retain any value at all.
While I agree that the companies should commit fraud or grossly mismanage the stockholders money, I don't see why there would be any legal expectation that the company will zealously persue every possible dime of the stockholder's behalf. If you don't like the way a company uses your share money, don't invest in them!
Slashdot Mirror
I can guarantee you there isn't nearly the level of accountability in privately held corporations.
That's simply not true. When a company fails to deliver the goods, it goes out of business.
Generally, the company that failed to deliver the good goes back and fixes the mistake, free of charge. That obviously isn't an option here.
I didn't get fired when I caused ~$30,000 of damage to a customer's piece of equipment. My companies attitude was basically "learn from your mistake". And then we went and repaired the damage.
And I doubt my company will be going out of business anytime soon, we're well over 100 years old and one of the largest companies on Earth.
Actually if you want to bring Jesus and friends into a piracy discussion, the loves and fishes thing is a much better fit.
Jesus and pals had a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. Jesus then shared it with his multitude of followers, and miraculously it was enough to feed hundreds of people. So somehow Jesus duplicated the food matter.
Since the multitudes he fed got to skip buying a meal, I'm sure many fishermen and bakers lost sales that day.
That's the problem, and exactly what we are complaining about. There should be a test for obviousness, and neccessarily it would be a subjective call on how simple or trivial something is. But right now, the patent office can't seem to be bothered to reject obvious or trivial solutions, and locking up the obvious or trivial solutions so that only one company can use simple neccessary tools to get stuff done is a major problem.
Prior art is a test for originality, not obviousness. We need to test for both.
Actually I'd rather sleep all the way to 5:45am, which is the latest I can wake up, shower, brush teeth, etc and still make it to work on time. 5:45 is already way to early to be awake, but 7:00am is pretty much the universal start time for work everywhere.
What am I missing here? Doing crossword puzzles is a solitary activity that you usually do in your own home. How does cute girls figure into it? Unless you're taking the crossword puzzles somewhere that a lot of cute girls are, in which case what do you need the puzzles for?
What the hell is an electric shower? It sounds painful.
What insubordination?
They told him he couldn't use the first room, and he didn't.They told him he couldn't use the second room, and he didn't.
They told him he couldn't use the third room, and he didn't.
They never had the balls to come right out and say he couldn't give the lecture at all, so he just went into a public area of the university and started talking. Where's the insubordination?
This is a big part of the problem. "Obtaining something without paying for it" is not wrong. Theft is wrong because the other person lost something. The fact that the thief gained something is in no way morally wrong, only the fact that they caused loss to someone else.
If I could make the world understand one thing, this would be it. I HATE the puritanical ethic that suggests you should have to lose something for everything you gain. That is a necessary evil when goods are scarce, but it should not be applied as a universal moral truth.
Why does the judge feel the the "public interest" is somehow limited to heath and safety concerns or criminal activity?
Apple wants to keep new products a secret because it is part of their business strategy. If people knew about upcoming new products, they might, for exaple, delay buying a new iPod six months to wait for the new model to come out. Fine, that defines Apple's interest in keeping the secret. Apple benifits financially from the secret.
But what about me? I want to minimize my spending and get the most value for my purchases. Apple keeps the secret from me so that I will make inferior buying decisions out of ignorance. Apple's finacial benifit comes from my financial loss.
My personal finances are definately central to my wellbeing in this society so I would say anything that could save me money is of vital interest to me. And I'm a member of the general public, so I'd say this is a "public interest". Why does Apple's right to try to maximize its profits outway my right to try to minimize my expeditures?
Um, that's the point. The fact that the documents were completely fake was revealed by a blog that put online comparisons of the CBS docs with the same document typed into MS Word.
Blogs were resonsible for exposing CBS
My memory is kind of fuzzy, but as I recall they used a Cray to make the special effects.
Indeed! I work in the power industry, I travell to many many power plants. Where are most of them located? In the middle of farm land!
Where do people get this idea? I haven't noticed any noise from wind turbines at all (though I admit they haven't let me work on any yet). Wind turbines spin at, what, 20rpm? (I know the generators spin at 1200rpm but the blades connect through a serious reduction gear first.) Go to Palm Springs, get as close as you can to the wind farm without trespassing. You can't hear anything!
The U.S. government is saying it could be from a forest fire? Living in southern California, I was almost inside a forest fire last year. I don't remeber it causing any 2 mile wide mushroom clouds.
That's incorrect. Physical objects neccesarily have an owner, whoever possesses the object at that time. Now who is the rightful owner is a matter created by law, but it is a fact that physical objects do have an owner (ligitimate or illigitimate) unless they are abandoned in the wilderness or something.
No, you've missed the point. Going by an informal count of the opinions posted here and elsewhere online, and the popularity of file sharing, etc. it is quite clear that the public does want unlimited sharing abilities, but the corporate powers and their bought congress persons reuse to listen to us.
I've been stuck in hotels in Hong Kong and Malaysia. It is boring. But watching other people be bored is even worse. Why do I need a movie to show me what bordom is like? I watched the DVD because I was already bored and hoped to aleviate my boredom.
Plus, these characters take bordom to a whole new level. They seem to be even more bored by their normal lives and don't want to go back, at least until the guy whispers whatever he said and deus-ex-machina suddenly life is smiles and happiness as they leave, never to see each other again!
Could somebody please tell me what I was enjoy/be entertained/learn from Lost in Translation? Personnally I want to sue the film makers to get those hours of my life back.
Summary: Two people in unhappy marriages are bored to tears in Tokoyo. We know they're lives are boring because the director bores us to tears watching them do nothing. The fall in love (but never consumate it) and are dreading going back to their normal lives. Suddenly at the last second, the guy wispers something (inaudible) to the girl and they both go magically smiley happy back to thier normal lives.
Other than a few tame chuckles at the Japanese and their trouble with English, it was the most boring, pointless movie ever.
ah, everyone I've agrued with this about before has trotted out a qutoe from a 1917 version of Webster Dictionary showing that beg used to mean "assume". This is a new (and still weird) definition. Since when does beg mean "make a beggar of"?
Well I'm not neccesarrily saying it true, but it would make logical sense. The evolutionary advantage would be making human clans more effeciant by dividing the labor of surviving into 2 specialized castes. I'm pretty sure early humans of either sex did not survive except as part of organized clans that were heavily dependant on each other.
This is espesially true of calculus and differential equations. I've known some downright ditzsy girls who could solve diff eqs effortlessly while its rare to find a man who could do more than crank out enough partial credit on the exams to pass the diff eq course.
I remember once one of my friends was tutoring a group of yourger EE students on basic circuit theory. He was teaching phasor calculations for RLC circuits. The guys were cranking along, not really even writing out any equations (just solving the simple multiplication/division in their heads for each part of the circuit). One of the girls protested that she "didn't get it" and asked "Why can't we just set up a differential equation?" The guys all scoffed that it would be rediculously hard to solve a circuit that way. So my friend (the tutor) set up a new circuit on the board. The guys all proceeded to solve the problem by phasor analysis. The girls solved it in approximately the same amount of time using differential equations!You just figured out the secret, Mr. AC, women prefer assholes. Actually, they refer to it as being "confident" or "assertive" but its exactly what we call "being a jerk".
Once I figuered that secret out, it didn't take long for me to finally have some success with women. Including my current girlfriend of 6 years.
Since being an asshole is a bit unnatural, I'll give you a couple tips. There's no need to be dishonest (in fact, your being brutally honest when being a jerk). And there's no need to belittle or abuse girls emotionally. Just focus on what you want (sex). If she resists then be rude and demanding. Either she'll give in and enjoy it (which as you know, never happens with the nice guy) or there was never a chance anyway and your better off not wasting time on her.
I really think guys of my generation and younger are seriously at a disadvantage because we were brought up primarily by our divorcee mothers in a world where "feminism" is the accepted fact. Women still instictively respond to "assertive" men while we've grown up thinking that its evil to treat women as anything other than objects of chaste worship.
I hate it when philosophy types bring this up.
Look, even if you accept an archaic definition of the word beg (to assume) as still current (which it isn't) the phrase (as used in logic) still doesn't make sense. You're not assuming the question, you're assuming the answer to the question. So the phrase (in logic) should be "Assumes (or begs, if you must) the answer."
But even if you accept the logic falacy phrase as semsible (which it isn't) that still doesn't preclude other gramatically and semantically correct usage of the phrase, such as "That begs (urgently pleas for) the question [to be asked]: {insert question here}."
Just because, say, "power triangle" refers to the vector diagram of real, reactive, and apparent power in electronics doesn't mean sombody couldn't refer to a three-sided battery pack, or a group of three nearby power plants as a "power triangle".
Why can't you put Honda engines in Hundai cars? I mean, they might not fit very well or whatever, but if someone made the neccessary adapters/modifications to put one in I'm pretty sure it would be legal. I know car-ethusiast types sometimes put engines from different car models into thier cars.
When you buy stock, nowhere does the company sign a contract saying they will do everything legally possible to increase the value of that stock. In fact, you are generally warned by the stock brokers many times over that there are no gauranties that the stock will retain any value at all.
While I agree that the companies should commit fraud or grossly mismanage the stockholders money, I don't see why there would be any legal expectation that the company will zealously persue every possible dime of the stockholder's behalf. If you don't like the way a company uses your share money, don't invest in them!