On the other hand, maybe they won't have those skills. Hard to say, because once you offshore something like this your control of it becomes sketchy at best. And I'm sure that those Indian companies will maintain tight security, so that all those ideas and inventions that flowed from American inventors wouldn't happen to, you know, end up somewhere unintended. No, the GP is correct: offshoring the vetting of patent applications is a baaaaaad idea. Really, sending important information of any kind to foreign countries is a bad idea, because any abuses that might occur are outside our law, and frankly I want those people who work with my confidential information to be subject to those laws. Not those of India, China, England, or anywhere else.
Hey, it's been a quarter-century since I was in college, but the last professor I had like that wasn't remotely focused on politics. This was a calculus class, and this guy would go on and on and on about the remodeling he and his wife were doing on their kitchen in the "unique fixer-upper opportunity" they had just bought. He would ramble on about the ancient COW GLUE used to hold the old linoleum down and how bad it smelled when they tore it up, and so on ad-infinitum. I switched out of his class because I wasn't getting anything from it. Well, I did learn a lot about cow glue.
Orson Scott Card is doing something along those lines at the Intergalactic Medicine Show. His subscription fees are reasonable and the site has good content. Hopefully he's making a good buck with it.
A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.
I understand that politics is largely the art of compromise, with a smidgen of malfeasance and self-aggrandization thrown in for good measure. But the reality of this situation is that the organizations promoting software patents are not in it for the betterment of society and economic growth and well-being... they are simply in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Consequently, there really isn't a "compromise" that can be reached... what proponents of software patents have to offer is of little value to anyone but themselves. I've been a software engineer for twenty-five years, and I'm dead-set against software patents, as are most of the other technical people I know that have bothered to understand the issues.
Making a pact with the Devil usually results in the pactee ending up in Hell. Best not to make such deals in the first place.
Actually, it is the unelected, appointed officials that are the most dangerous because they have little or no accountability to the citizens that elected the people that appointed them. Nobody gets to vote on who the head of the FBI or the NSA or the Justice Department should be. I'm not saying that we should, either... the popular will is often an idiot: just look who we elected President again. But it does mean that appointees hang around long after the politician(s) that put them there have been voted out, and if it happens that said politician made a bad pick, we're stuck with it until someone else decides to change it. And that can take years.
I was right with you up 'til the ten year olds. I mean, you gotta leave a guy some vices.
Seriously though, relatively few people that I know (and many of those are engineers and professional people of one sort or another who you'd think would know better) have even heard of the RIAA. When I attempt to talk about the subject, I get a. a blank stare or b. "but they gotta protect the artists!" or c. "who cares." All they know is that there are a bunch of companies called "studios" and that, somehow, "studio recordings" end up on shiny plastic discs that they can buy at the store.
The way I see it, the vast majority of music consumers are just completely ignorant of the issues. The RIAA stayed out of the limelight for decade after decade, and only came out because of Napster. Even so, they are being are more successful in their propaganda campaign than people like you and me are at educating people about the music industry's many ills.
Yes, well... that's why I said, "for the moment." Google's motives aren't entirely clear, but from the day they went public they made it known that investors were free to give them money but that they shouldn't expect the traditional level of control over company operations. And that probably stems from an awareness that Wall Street is in the process of driving American business into the ground, and a sincere desire to avoid a similar fate.
Nice attempt at constructive criticism but I'm afraid you fail.
From the perspective of China's citizenry, it is irrelevent whether I (or anyone else from another nation) question the actions of their government. When I said "absolute, questioned control" I wasn't referring to you and me... I was talking about the Chinese people. And they don't have the right to question their leaders... that's what makes it what it is, a totalitarian state. You knew perfectly well what I meant, but I guess felt the need to exercise your sophistry.
Indeed, it is your statement that is indicative of how difficult this subject is. And I don't mean that in the sense of "how do we define totalitarianism" but rather "how do we get people to acknowledge it when they see it?" America's corporate leadership has shown a degree of ethical and moral blindness at all levels in its dealings with China that I have to believe that many of them are falling for the "it's really hard to define a totalitarian state" rhetoric that you seem to be trying to pass off.
Looking at human history for the last couple of thousand years, I'd have to say that the normal state of the humanity is abject misery under the rule of an autocratic government. That means that we, as a race, have plenty of experience in determining which governments are totalitarian, fascist, Communist (ha, like that's ever been tried), socialist, or any other kind. If you know any person or persons that honestly believe that the People's Republic of China even remotely resembles a true republic, please disabuse them of that notion.
Well, I tend to disagree with you. Simply rolling over and playing dead for the DoJ is hardly the answer. I will give Google credit for sticking to its guns for the moment. Google is taking the correct stance, which is to say "nope, we aren't in the business of serving as a political tool, and if you want access to our files you'd better have a damned good reason." Lawfully issued subpoenas for the purpose of investigating specific crimes are one thing, raiding a corporate database en-masse because you want evidence to support a law which multiple Federal courts have already struck down is something else entirely. Our government is becoming entirely too cavalier with our privacy (the Department of Justice almost seems to feel entitled to find out anything it wants about us) and I wish more companies had the kind of cojones that Google has put on display.
Even if Google (or any other database outfit) decides not to collect personally identifiable data, the government (which has found mining of private databases very rewarding) will simply mandate that such collection occur. This is already happening in Europe, with new data retention laws. In the EU, not collecting such information is not an option, and I'd much rather such nonsense didn't propagate to the United States. Simply allowing the government to steamroller what remains of our ability to keep our stuff private is playing with fire on an even greater scale.
You need to get out more. Such comparisons of the United States and Nazi Germany are melodramatic and rather silly. Probably you haven't read enough history to realize just what the Nazi's actually were. Read up on the fall of the Weimar Republic after World War I, and how Hitler actually came to power. And yes, there are some frightening parallels between the rise of the Third Reich and what is happening in the United States today. But still, I don't see us annexing nation after nation by main strength and torturing and murdering millions in the name of racial purity. We may be disliked by some, but I have the feeling that the Nazis were disliked a hell of a lot more.
Moreover, while my post did not advocate U.S. governmental intervention in China or any other nation, I do maintain that American corporate entities (which are subject to U.S. law) should not simply be absolved of any responsibility for obeying those laws when operating in a foreign country. Doing business is one thing: getting people killed or imprisoned for actions that would be perfectly acceptable here is another. In fact, I would go further and say that if they insist on aiding and abetting fascist or totalitarian states they should be required to relinquish their U.S. corporate citizenship and pack their bags for one of those places. The price of access to Google, Yahoo and MSN and the like should not be death and imprisonment for foreign nationals. Or if it is, at least we should not be a part of it.
On the other hand... this could make a good defense for the next guy that does it. Sony has managed to set a nice precedent that infecting thousands upon thousands of computers with a rootkit (of all things) is perfectly okay. "I didn't know it was illegal your Honor. I got the idea after I bought a Sony music CD with one already on it!"
Being a totalitarian state is not a matter of interpretation, as you seem to think it is. In fact, it is pretty much an absolute. Says it right in the name: totalitarian. Totally not much wiggle room there, dude. If a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens and has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion, then pretty much we can call it totalitarian. China fits that particular bill to a tee, I'm afraid. See: Tianamen Square.
Much of the world may indeed have no use for the American Way (whatever you actually mean by that.) However, given the number of applications for immigrant status that are turned away every year it's obvious that a lot of people would disagree with you. I could go on about Iran, Iraq, etc., but you get my point.
But you're right... no company can dicate to the Chinese government what it can do. Neither can the Chinese people for that matter (which hearkens back to that whole "totalitarian state" thing.) Which is, like, totally not the point. Dude. The issue is whether we, as Americans, will tolerate corporations which are based in this country, pay taxes in this country, avail themselves of all this country has to offer, and are owned and operated by American citizens, behaving in a manner that belies everything for which the United States has stood for over two hundred years.
Corporations are soulless by definition, so it is up to us to supply one if needed. This is not some legal exercise: people in China are getting hurt because of the actions of these corporations, often people who want nothing more than than the same inalienable rights that we Americans have always enjoyed. Ultimately, it is a matter of conscience, of empathy. And that, my friend, is the point.
on the concept and implementation of "vaporware". But that's okay... if they actually pull off any of this wonderful-sounding stuff it will just provide some more competition to keep Google, Yahoo and even Microsoft on their toes.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder where all those people went.
Most of them went to New Orleans. Boy, were they surprised.
"but, but, McCarthy was right! He wound Brazillians of Commie-pinkos hiding in the state department!"
... what do wind-up Brazilians have to do with McCarthyism? Or am I missing something?
Just curious
On the other hand, maybe they won't have those skills. Hard to say, because once you offshore something like this your control of it becomes sketchy at best. And I'm sure that those Indian companies will maintain tight security, so that all those ideas and inventions that flowed from American inventors wouldn't happen to, you know, end up somewhere unintended. No, the GP is correct: offshoring the vetting of patent applications is a baaaaaad idea. Really, sending important information of any kind to foreign countries is a bad idea, because any abuses that might occur are outside our law, and frankly I want those people who work with my confidential information to be subject to those laws. Not those of India, China, England, or anywhere else.
Hey, it's been a quarter-century since I was in college, but the last professor I had like that wasn't remotely focused on politics. This was a calculus class, and this guy would go on and on and on about the remodeling he and his wife were doing on their kitchen in the "unique fixer-upper opportunity" they had just bought. He would ramble on about the ancient COW GLUE used to hold the old linoleum down and how bad it smelled when they tore it up, and so on ad-infinitum. I switched out of his class because I wasn't getting anything from it. Well, I did learn a lot about cow glue.
Orson Scott Card is doing something along those lines at the Intergalactic Medicine Show. His subscription fees are reasonable and the site has good content. Hopefully he's making a good buck with it.
When I want to suspend animation I simply press the PAUSE button on my VCR remote.
A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.
... they are simply in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Consequently, there really isn't a "compromise" that can be reached ... what proponents of software patents have to offer is of little value to anyone but themselves. I've been a software engineer for twenty-five years, and I'm dead-set against software patents, as are most of the other technical people I know that have bothered to understand the issues.
I understand that politics is largely the art of compromise, with a smidgen of malfeasance and self-aggrandization thrown in for good measure. But the reality of this situation is that the organizations promoting software patents are not in it for the betterment of society and economic growth and well-being
Making a pact with the Devil usually results in the pactee ending up in Hell. Best not to make such deals in the first place.
No ... next stop, Planet of the Apes.
Actually, it is the unelected, appointed officials that are the most dangerous because they have little or no accountability to the citizens that elected the people that appointed them. Nobody gets to vote on who the head of the FBI or the NSA or the Justice Department should be. I'm not saying that we should, either ... the popular will is often an idiot: just look who we elected President again. But it does mean that appointees hang around long after the politician(s) that put them there have been voted out, and if it happens that said politician made a bad pick, we're stuck with it until someone else decides to change it. And that can take years.
I was right with you up 'til the ten year olds. I mean, you gotta leave a guy some vices.
Seriously though, relatively few people that I know (and many of those are engineers and professional people of one sort or another who you'd think would know better) have even heard of the RIAA. When I attempt to talk about the subject, I get a. a blank stare or b. "but they gotta protect the artists!" or c. "who cares." All they know is that there are a bunch of companies called "studios" and that, somehow, "studio recordings" end up on shiny plastic discs that they can buy at the store.
The way I see it, the vast majority of music consumers are just completely ignorant of the issues. The RIAA stayed out of the limelight for decade after decade, and only came out because of Napster. Even so, they are being are more successful in their propaganda campaign than people like you and me are at educating people about the music industry's many ills.
Yes, well ... that's why I said, "for the moment." Google's motives aren't entirely clear, but from the day they went public they made it known that investors were free to give them money but that they shouldn't expect the traditional level of control over company operations. And that probably stems from an awareness that Wall Street is in the process of driving American business into the ground, and a sincere desire to avoid a similar fate.
... question the actions of their government. When I said "absolute, questioned control" I wasn't ...
... question the actions of their government. When I said "absolute, unquestioned control" I wasn't ...
Should be:
Oops.
Nice attempt at constructive criticism but I'm afraid you fail.
... I was talking about the Chinese people. And they don't have the right to question their leaders ... that's what makes it what it is, a totalitarian state. You knew perfectly well what I meant, but I guess felt the need to exercise your sophistry.
From the perspective of China's citizenry, it is irrelevent whether I (or anyone else from another nation) question the actions of their government. When I said "absolute, questioned control" I wasn't referring to you and me
Indeed, it is your statement that is indicative of how difficult this subject is. And I don't mean that in the sense of "how do we define totalitarianism" but rather "how do we get people to acknowledge it when they see it?" America's corporate leadership has shown a degree of ethical and moral blindness at all levels in its dealings with China that I have to believe that many of them are falling for the "it's really hard to define a totalitarian state" rhetoric that you seem to be trying to pass off.
Looking at human history for the last couple of thousand years, I'd have to say that the normal state of the humanity is abject misery under the rule of an autocratic government. That means that we, as a race, have plenty of experience in determining which governments are totalitarian, fascist, Communist (ha, like that's ever been tried), socialist, or any other kind. If you know any person or persons that honestly believe that the People's Republic of China even remotely resembles a true republic, please disabuse them of that notion.
Well, I tend to disagree with you. Simply rolling over and playing dead for the DoJ is hardly the answer. I will give Google credit for sticking to its guns for the moment. Google is taking the correct stance, which is to say "nope, we aren't in the business of serving as a political tool, and if you want access to our files you'd better have a damned good reason." Lawfully issued subpoenas for the purpose of investigating specific crimes are one thing, raiding a corporate database en-masse because you want evidence to support a law which multiple Federal courts have already struck down is something else entirely. Our government is becoming entirely too cavalier with our privacy (the Department of Justice almost seems to feel entitled to find out anything it wants about us) and I wish more companies had the kind of cojones that Google has put on display.
Even if Google (or any other database outfit) decides not to collect personally identifiable data, the government (which has found mining of private databases very rewarding) will simply mandate that such collection occur. This is already happening in Europe, with new data retention laws. In the EU, not collecting such information is not an option, and I'd much rather such nonsense didn't propagate to the United States. Simply allowing the government to steamroller what remains of our ability to keep our stuff private is playing with fire on an even greater scale.
2.6 Terrabytes of Disk Space (2x Raid 5 array's in 2x chassis').
6 Tuners - 2 SDTV, 2 HDTV, 2 Digital Cable (QAM256)
Not to quibble, but I'm afraid your post is simply a mine is bigger statement that can't be backed up. Either.
And that is yet another problem with Corporate America.
Thank you.
You need to get out more. Such comparisons of the United States and Nazi Germany are melodramatic and rather silly. Probably you haven't read enough history to realize just what the Nazi's actually were. Read up on the fall of the Weimar Republic after World War I, and how Hitler actually came to power. And yes, there are some frightening parallels between the rise of the Third Reich and what is happening in the United States today. But still, I don't see us annexing nation after nation by main strength and torturing and murdering millions in the name of racial purity. We may be disliked by some, but I have the feeling that the Nazis were disliked a hell of a lot more.
Moreover, while my post did not advocate U.S. governmental intervention in China or any other nation, I do maintain that American corporate entities (which are subject to U.S. law) should not simply be absolved of any responsibility for obeying those laws when operating in a foreign country. Doing business is one thing: getting people killed or imprisoned for actions that would be perfectly acceptable here is another. In fact, I would go further and say that if they insist on aiding and abetting fascist or totalitarian states they should be required to relinquish their U.S. corporate citizenship and pack their bags for one of those places. The price of access to Google, Yahoo and MSN and the like should not be death and imprisonment for foreign nationals. Or if it is, at least we should not be a part of it.
On the other hand ... this could make a good defense for the next guy that does it. Sony has managed to set a nice precedent that infecting thousands upon thousands of computers with a rootkit (of all things) is perfectly okay. "I didn't know it was illegal your Honor. I got the idea after I bought a Sony music CD with one already on it!"
Well, given crap passing for music nowadays I'd spell it "NOYS".
No, I don't get your point.
... no company can dicate to the Chinese government what it can do. Neither can the Chinese people for that matter (which hearkens back to that whole "totalitarian state" thing.) Which is, like, totally not the point. Dude. The issue is whether we, as Americans, will tolerate corporations which are based in this country, pay taxes in this country, avail themselves of all this country has to offer, and are owned and operated by American citizens, behaving in a manner that belies everything for which the United States has stood for over two hundred years.
Being a totalitarian state is not a matter of interpretation, as you seem to think it is. In fact, it is pretty much an absolute. Says it right in the name: totalitarian. Totally not much wiggle room there, dude. If a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens and has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion, then pretty much we can call it totalitarian. China fits that particular bill to a tee, I'm afraid. See: Tianamen Square.
Much of the world may indeed have no use for the American Way (whatever you actually mean by that.) However, given the number of applications for immigrant status that are turned away every year it's obvious that a lot of people would disagree with you. I could go on about Iran, Iraq, etc., but you get my point.
But you're right
Corporations are soulless by definition, so it is up to us to supply one if needed. This is not some legal exercise: people in China are getting hurt because of the actions of these corporations, often people who want nothing more than than the same inalienable rights that we Americans have always enjoyed. Ultimately, it is a matter of conscience, of empathy. And that, my friend, is the point.
Actually, a better choice of weapon would be a Brandeis Mark IV docket-blaster with the overbilling mod.
Michael Crichton's only redeeming virtue is that his books are occasionally (though not by any means always) made into good movies.
The only game more entertaining than baseball is golf ... both are variations on the theme of "watching grass grow."
on the concept and implementation of "vaporware". But that's okay ... if they actually pull off any of this wonderful-sounding stuff it will just provide some more competition to keep Google, Yahoo and even Microsoft on their toes.