"I think that's perfectly sensible (or rather, as sensible as patents ever are). You shouldn't be able to get free reign to infringe on anyone's patents just by making the particular infringing part of your software open source."
But that's not what happened.
The patent holder gpled; the patent holder was aware of the patents when they did it.
No. Simply no. Government regulations may fix older regulations, true. The market is both complex and dynamic, and the 'invisible hand' doesn't come down like a hammer and pin things in one place, forever. If that was the way things worked, 'gaming the system' be even worse than it is normally.
As to your example, that is an example of government social engineering, NOT economic (save of course, black-market economics). The 'invisible hand' is a part of free-market, economic dogma, not religious or social dogma. And it was worse than not enforcing laws, they actively encouraged law-breaking so that they could catch law breakers, point to the lawlessness, and proclaim that people couldn't be trusted with guns. The plan (predictably) backfired, and since the consequences (death) are terrible and irreversible, everyone involved is hiding instead of crowing their 'success'.
The fact remains that the invisible hand that corrects the market IS manifested by the market, the market is the consumer, the consumer is the voter, and the voter ultimately controls legislation. The folks in government want power, to keep it they must keep the voters happy, and the voters are the market.
Further, tipping control to businesses is foolish in the extreme; the only thing that keeps businesses stagnation and abuse is competition, but competition minimizes profits - so business minimizes competition wherever possible. Without regulation to preserve competition there is no development, and prices rise until there is no room for new products to be bought, and progress ceases. Regulations serve more purposes as well. Not all transactions are reversible (for instance, environmental regs are necessary to prevent businesses from poisoning the land and the people for the sake of profits for people unaffected by local misery). Not everything is a luxury, either - when your life depends on a product, the supply-demand curves go ALL to hell.
Never in history has a totaly free-maket economy both existed and thrived, and there's a reason for that - it doesn't work. In fact, the closer people have gotten, the worse it's been!
In summary, government regs ARE the invisible hand, they are the result of market failings, and not all are bad. Businesses sure want you to think so for the sake of their short-term profits, though.
ROFL - don't you understand? When the market is abused, the invisible hand DOES correct things... Through government regulation. That's what capitalism in a democracy (even in a Republican Democracy like ours - the level of abstraction just creates 'lag' - though that lag IS painful) is all about. The error most who call themselves 'Libertarian' make nowadays is considering government to be separate from markets; that regulations maliciously spring from nowhere simply to server politicians who are never serving constituents - they don't look any deeper than the businesses they favor over the citizens that make up the markets.
And airport rent-a-cops are superior to free speech rights - instead the woman should have 'changed the law'? Until then obeyobeyobey your appointed masters and their extra-legal regulations (show me the legislation that says non violent disrespect to officials that aren't even police officers is against the law and cannot be protected speech), or be severely limited in your movements, right?
No wonder you posted anonymously; that's a shameful position to take.
Probably accurate though. Now that 'liberty==prosperity' and 'poverty==immorality' anything that made our Great Experiment admirable is rapidly being flushed down the toilet by the right in exchange for power. Short-term power, as they are destroying the nation long-term in order to make their profit now, all while crying "think of the children!"
Bite me you cowardly, authoritarian weakling. You and your ilk are evidence of the decline and fall of the USA.
Your kind of post disgusts me. YOU are why the terrorists have won; 'They' don't have to actually DO anything, tiny minds like yours can handle all the 'terrorizing' from now on. You would throw away anything that makes you American for the merest illusion of safety. YOU are the problem.
ROFL. It was on purpose, directing you to "Hear here". I write the phrase that way because it makes more sense that way. (Not that doing it wrong on purpose is any less jarring than doing it wrong by accident...) You are the only one I can remember calling me out on it!
*shrug* I looked it up and it's derived from "Hear him!", apparently. Heh. Still think my use makes more sense... *grin*
Problem with that is that 'tort reform' is generally code for 'no penalty for malfeasance and pain and suffering are worth nothing'. IOW, if a doctor cuts off your balls instead of cutting out your appendix he would be on the hook for the cost of the operation. A company that dumped poison on a park that killed children would be on the hook for cleanup and funeral costs. And so on.
The point of the market is to maximize profits. Competition cuts into profits. To maximize profit then, you must (eventually) eliminate or co-opt your competition until there is none left. THAT is what the free marketeers advocate, in a nutshell. They get around this by asserting it can never happen, even though it happens with depressing regularity in REAL life. The only way to prevent it is with regulation, something the corporate shills... err... free marketeers will oppose to their last breath, denouncing it as 'socialism' or 'force' - when it is, in fact, moderation, that most evil of sins... You know, making sure that freedom doesn't end up 'freedom to enslave'.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think that's perfectly sensible (or rather, as sensible as patents ever are). You shouldn't be able to get free reign to infringe on anyone's patents just by making the particular infringing part of your software open source."
But that's not what happened.
The patent holder gpled; the patent holder was aware of the patents when they did it.
You left out "on others unless in clear defense" but I'm sure you meant to put it on there.
Wait, you didn't - you'd rather folk be victims, or that every person had their own personal cop to follow them everywhere and keep them safe...
That is a GREAT way of putting it. Wish I had mod points.
No. Simply no. Government regulations may fix older regulations, true. The market is both complex and dynamic, and the 'invisible hand' doesn't come down like a hammer and pin things in one place, forever. If that was the way things worked, 'gaming the system' be even worse than it is normally.
As to your example, that is an example of government social engineering, NOT economic (save of course, black-market economics). The 'invisible hand' is a part of free-market, economic dogma, not religious or social dogma. And it was worse than not enforcing laws, they actively encouraged law-breaking so that they could catch law breakers, point to the lawlessness, and proclaim that people couldn't be trusted with guns. The plan (predictably) backfired, and since the consequences (death) are terrible and irreversible, everyone involved is hiding instead of crowing their 'success'.
The fact remains that the invisible hand that corrects the market IS manifested by the market, the market is the consumer, the consumer is the voter, and the voter ultimately controls legislation. The folks in government want power, to keep it they must keep the voters happy, and the voters are the market.
Further, tipping control to businesses is foolish in the extreme; the only thing that keeps businesses stagnation and abuse is competition, but competition minimizes profits - so business minimizes competition wherever possible. Without regulation to preserve competition there is no development, and prices rise until there is no room for new products to be bought, and progress ceases. Regulations serve more purposes as well. Not all transactions are reversible (for instance, environmental regs are necessary to prevent businesses from poisoning the land and the people for the sake of profits for people unaffected by local misery). Not everything is a luxury, either - when your life depends on a product, the supply-demand curves go ALL to hell.
Never in history has a totaly free-maket economy both existed and thrived, and there's a reason for that - it doesn't work. In fact, the closer people have gotten, the worse it's been!
In summary, government regs ARE the invisible hand, they are the result of market failings, and not all are bad. Businesses sure want you to think so for the sake of their short-term profits, though.
Because everything accomplished by the US or US companies have been funded by tax cuts.
Something?
Anything?
Well, at least with your suggestion I'd be able to afford an extra happy meal every month!
ROFL - don't you understand? When the market is abused, the invisible hand DOES correct things... Through government regulation. That's what capitalism in a democracy (even in a Republican Democracy like ours - the level of abstraction just creates 'lag' - though that lag IS painful) is all about. The error most who call themselves 'Libertarian' make nowadays is considering government to be separate from markets; that regulations maliciously spring from nowhere simply to server politicians who are never serving constituents - they don't look any deeper than the businesses they favor over the citizens that make up the markets.
So tell me how she was belligerent. Tell me how she was being disorderly. Hmm. Insulting the officer.
"The parent also did not have to insult the mothers of the TSA agents (or whatever prompted the calling of the cops)."
Your words, I believe?
Oh, so she went 'purely to make a scene' now, eh?
And airport rent-a-cops are superior to free speech rights - instead the woman should have 'changed the law'? Until then obeyobeyobey your appointed masters and their extra-legal regulations (show me the legislation that says non violent disrespect to officials that aren't even police officers is against the law and cannot be protected speech), or be severely limited in your movements, right?
No wonder you posted anonymously; that's a shameful position to take.
Probably accurate though. Now that 'liberty==prosperity' and 'poverty==immorality' anything that made our Great Experiment admirable is rapidly being flushed down the toilet by the right in exchange for power. Short-term power, as they are destroying the nation long-term in order to make their profit now, all while crying "think of the children!"
Shame.
How christ-like. Why, they are HEROES!
Bite me you cowardly, authoritarian weakling. You and your ilk are evidence of the decline and fall of the USA.
Your kind of post disgusts me. YOU are why the terrorists have won; 'They' don't have to actually DO anything, tiny minds like yours can handle all the 'terrorizing' from now on. You would throw away anything that makes you American for the merest illusion of safety. YOU are the problem.
So a citizen of the United States' individual freedoms and rights mean nothing compared to your convenience? Who are you, Newt Gingrich?
The system works!
Because insults aren't protected speech and those representing government mandates are above such things anyway?
The right has FUCKED this country. 'Obey now, fill out forms later' sure is the American way.
Oh wait. It's that way now, after Fatherland Security was created.
"Linux is a pile of security vulnerabilities waiting to be discovered."
As is every OS. Apparently, ESPECIALLY Windows.
"It's just that no one bothers, at least not on the scale that Windows "enjoys"."
This has been debunked so many times its ridiculous. Go on living in fairyland, though.
ROFL. It was on purpose, directing you to "Hear here". I write the phrase that way because it makes more sense that way. (Not that doing it wrong on purpose is any less jarring than doing it wrong by accident...) You are the only one I can remember calling me out on it!
*shrug* I looked it up and it's derived from "Hear him!", apparently. Heh. Still think my use makes more sense... *grin*
^^^ This.
Yup. That's why solar and wind are going nowhere. Yup. Yup. Yup...
Hear here!
Think of the children! The innocent, flammable children!
Pile 'em on top of the metal detectors for shoes, and cover them over with bottles of liquid more than 6 oz no purchased inside the gates.
I saw that documentary too!
Problem with that is that 'tort reform' is generally code for 'no penalty for malfeasance and pain and suffering are worth nothing'. IOW, if a doctor cuts off your balls instead of cutting out your appendix he would be on the hook for the cost of the operation. A company that dumped poison on a park that killed children would be on the hook for cleanup and funeral costs. And so on.
Not for the wealthy. As for the poor, fuck them, right? They deserve it for being poor, right?
Schmuck.
Now THAT is an amusing idea.
Why, the burning flags?
The point of the market is to maximize profits. Competition cuts into profits. To maximize profit then, you must (eventually) eliminate or co-opt your competition until there is none left. THAT is what the free marketeers advocate, in a nutshell. They get around this by asserting it can never happen, even though it happens with depressing regularity in REAL life. The only way to prevent it is with regulation, something the corporate shills... err... free marketeers will oppose to their last breath, denouncing it as 'socialism' or 'force' - when it is, in fact, moderation, that most evil of sins... You know, making sure that freedom doesn't end up 'freedom to enslave'.