We were almost going to do just that but just as we were about to make the final flush, we found out that toilets were patented by some Englishmen named Crapper.
I think the primary issues here are freedom and liberty. The things being patented are not only obvious developments but are essential to economic development.
Participation in Western economic systems, particularly the U.S. markets, can greatly increase the quality of life and level of industrialization of other nations. What we are saying is that in order for these nations to better their citizen's lives, they must participate in a patent system that is flagrantly exploitive. Every single obvious technology, and even algorithms, are being patented if there is no prior art; and sometimes that doesn't even matter.
How are developing nations and people around the world supposed to grow and develop their own economies if everything they need to develop must be licensed from some whack-job or unscrupulous capitalists? If Pfizer patents an AIDS vaccine, should Africa not be allowed to manufacture it cheaper if they want to continue trade with the U.S.? That is just one big example but all of the little things add up too.
We should not forget that our prosperity (Americans) began with the industrial revolution and technologies (textile mills) stolen from England.
In the end, people need to grow up and stop acting like greedy spoiled, little children who refuse to share the toys they were fortunate enough to possess.
I devised a my own model last November that predicted wide scale havoc, including more geopolitical destabilization, improving Asian economies and a stagnate U.S. economy, melting glaciers, and even the Hubble telescope falling out of the friggin sky.
It was a simple binary model however. But maybe its simplicity would make it less uncertain for the administration.
Why don't you move to China and do all of those things while maintaining a blog of your adventure. Thus, if your blog suddenly disappears or is abandoned, then we will know for sure what happens in China when you do those things..
So the question is whether code written by IBM actually belongs to SCO? Did the license IBM agree to in order to Develop AIX and Dynix state that all code developed by IBM and added to Sys-V in order to develop a derived product will belong to another party? I just can't imagine that IBM would have agreed to that. It doesn't even make sense. Why would IBm develop a product for another company's benefit and not their own?
More of a "You can't say that." than "That isn't correct.
This issue is not whether the man's position is not correct. The issue that should be proven is that he is correct.
The commonly held belief is that females and males possess equivalent aptitude for subjects like Mathematics and Science. This man comes along and says that this is not true. People are offended. Then, people like you come along and dare those who are offended to prove the man wrong instead of being offended. Don't you think you have that backwards?
Of course the humor in all of this - and I am not leveling this at you - is that you can have men making ridiculously invalid arguments about how Women do not posses the same aptitude for Math and Science as they presumably possess.
The freedom of speech allows one to express themselves freely yet certain kinds of speech can and are limited. For example..
You do not have the right to express speech that incites violence or other crimes.
Nor do you have the right to express speech in such a way that causes a public disturbance. you cannot drive down your steet with a megaphone at three in the morning expressing your opinion to your neighbors whether they want to hear them, or not.
These men may represent a just cause but they do not have the right to stand in line in a government building and express views that are offensive to at least some of the people who work there. The jokes they made were clearly not speech between themselves but speech broadcasted to the entire room with the intent to force the people present to listen to their case. Not only was that wrong, they were offensive to the lawyers who worked there.
I am not fond of lawyers either but I still respect them as I would like to be respected. If a lawyer happened to come to my place of work and decided to broadcast stupid jokes meant to be offensive to software engineers, I would want the removed as well.
Just as a devil's advocate... If the CIA decided to plant the evidence, why would they make it that obvious? Why not just plant some material of Russian or French origin?
In any case, I doubt an external party (another agency) would be able to piece it together. There would most likely be only the minimum necessary number of people who would be aware of something like that as it would - in my opinion at least - constitute high treason. And as such, it's not like they would email out a memo about it.
In any case, I think you are placing far too much competence on these people (groups 1 - 9 that is). I have often found conspiracy theories a bit quaint considering the dipshits that are appointed to run the agencies.
The stars appear smeared in the direction of oscillations yet not the comet. Should the comet not also be smeared in that direction?
Also, with no vibrations, should not the stars be smeared in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation? If so - and if the distance of their smears roughly corresponds to the distance at which they should travel across the sky in two minutes (I am not certain that they would travel that far however) - then the vibration theory could be discounted.
Also note that the amplitudes are not uniform. If the object was indeed traveling in some sort of cork-screw fashion, then it would seem likely that from most vantage points, the amplitudes would increase and decrease; unless the camera was positioned such that it pointed perpendicular to the comets trajectory.
And then by the same reasoning, the frequency should appear to decrease as the object approaches. But the frequency seems to stay uniform.
I want to see the actual code and see how it works and how it is deployed. It needs to be put out there and there really should be controls on these voting machines to control software updates if there are none right now.
That source code and every storage device it was ever stored on in any form is most likely being burned as we type.
You honestly believe that there was 3.5 MILLION votes worth of voting fraud? Or more than 150,000 votes worth of fraud in Ohio? And that the DNC, the Kerry campaign, the election monitors, the 3600 Kerry campaign lawyers, all just did nothing about it?
Tip: Don't write posts on the Internet that advocate lining people up and shooting them when one of those people happen to be the U.S. President (Unless you live in the U.K. and write for the Guardian of course).
When you enlist in the military, you sign a contract agreeing to serve a specified time in active duty and a specified time in inactive duty. My contract was for four years active, four year inactive.
Stop-Loss is not the "agreement that you can be called upon even to serve again even after your tour of duty" which describes the inactive period of enlistment, but an executive order that actually changes the contract such that you cannot separate according to contract. I am not even sure if "stop-loss" was actually in the contract that many of these people signed (It is probably in there now).
Another issue is the fact that many people were mislead into the Guard and Reserves thinking their positions could not be sent overseas. When I separated from active duty, they tried to convince myself and a few others separating at the same time to sign up for the Air National Guard. I was told that if I signed a certain contract, then if a war occurred, the worst that could happen is that we would be sent to CONUS bases to fill in for people who have been deployed. I know one person who believed that. He is now deployed "overseas".
Yet your computer most likely did not come with the unpatched Firefox browser where many computers - until recently - still shipped with pre-SP2 XP and the same unpatched version of IE.
However, if your computer did come with your unpatched Firefox installed as the default browser instead of IE, then would not the first web page you see after firing up the browser for the first time say something like: "Your version of Firefox is out of date and requires a security update. Click here to update it"?
Yet they are EQUALLY susceptible to vote tampering. That was all I was hinting. I still think that we should have a more robust system as you said as it is easier to catch the tampering.
The reason that firms found it profitable to upgrade into less polluting technologies under the bubble policy was an economic condition specifically created by the bubble policy. Without that policy, there would be no incentive.
In case you don't know about the policy, it is essentially a government regulated cap on the amount of specifiv polluting effluents in a particular region. That means, when this is reched, which it was, then no new industries can be introduced into that zone. What happens is that a demand is created for pollution capacities. When the cap was set in place, if your firm produced X amount of a pollutant, then that firm is given X shares of a pollution "stock". If the company upgrades their capacity, and thus reduces their impact on the environment, they can sell that stock on the market. It actually works. That is what I am talking about.
It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.
Then prove it. I don't follow the liberal/environmentalist party-line so I will read it with an open mind. I have taken macro/micro econ as well as environmental science and policy as an undergrad. I am pretty sure I could follow your argument so make it.
I am not going to break-down your anecdote. The problem with it is that you completely disregard factors such as improved efficiency. When a company is forced to reinvest into cleaner technologies, they do not go out willy-nilly and purchase more expensive versions of the same technologies they are using. They usually purchase more efficient technologies. This creates a demand for such technologies and markets open up to satiate that demand. Consider what has happened in the "Bubble Policy" where the government made it profitable for business to clean themselves up. It has generated new industries to help businesses become more profitable by becoming cleaner. Kyoto could be implemented nationally any many forms and not all of them would cause the little story you described.
I call bullshit. It is easy to say "Kyoto treaty will cause lost jobs" but much tougher to prove it. If anything, initiatives like the Kyoto treaty will create demand for cleaner technologies and upgrades. It is silly to look at the issue from the microeconomic perspective of a particular industry or even one polluting company. Yes, it will reduce job growth in that company but remember that company still must upgrade its technologies to comply with new regulations. This increases our macroeconomic exdendatures which helps us all.
This argument is not new. The same things happened when Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. This same tired argument was made then (as well as corporate threats).
And before somebody hits "reply", no, it is not the fault of the Kyoto treaty that these corporations are threatening to outsource jobs if it is passed. It is a result of Bush's crappy trade policies and lack of concern for outsourcing in general. If you are so worried about outsourcing, then you should be doubly concerned about the "tax reforms" Bush says we need so badly.
Why does that matter when so many of them think their God wants them to elect George Bush? Regarding the non-"values" Bush voters, if they are not one of the few rich individuals set to gain big these next four years, then what else should we call them?
The irony is that one of the biggest voting groups for Bush is the lower middle class. Most of these people are either not college-educated, possess a two-year degree, or work in a trade. These people are the primary victims of Bush's tax cut bonanza and his lack of concern for outsourcing.
If God didn't make them do this to themselves, then what should we call them?
Perhaps you could also add to the list a differing business model. Currently, the high cost of packaging, marketing, and selling games at EB and Gamestop is pretty expensive. I can imagine a few twists on the open-source and shareware models that may work as well.
Slashdot Mirror
We were almost going to do just that but just as we were about to make the final flush, we found out that toilets were patented by some Englishmen named Crapper.
The solution is to not allow layered content like that to cover up the page in the actual browser core.
Would that not preclude dhtml menu interfaces where the user can mouse over a menu item and a new menu is displayed over the other content?
I think the primary issues here are freedom and liberty. The things being patented are not only obvious developments but are essential to economic development.
Participation in Western economic systems, particularly the U.S. markets, can greatly increase the quality of life and level of industrialization of other nations. What we are saying is that in order for these nations to better their citizen's lives, they must participate in a patent system that is flagrantly exploitive. Every single obvious technology, and even algorithms, are being patented if there is no prior art; and sometimes that doesn't even matter.
How are developing nations and people around the world supposed to grow and develop their own economies if everything they need to develop must be licensed from some whack-job or unscrupulous capitalists? If Pfizer patents an AIDS vaccine, should Africa not be allowed to manufacture it cheaper if they want to continue trade with the U.S.? That is just one big example but all of the little things add up too.
We should not forget that our prosperity (Americans) began with the industrial revolution and technologies (textile mills) stolen from England.
In the end, people need to grow up and stop acting like greedy spoiled, little children who refuse to share the toys they were fortunate enough to possess.
It was a simple binary model however. But maybe its simplicity would make it less uncertain for the administration.
Why don't you move to China and do all of those things while maintaining a blog of your adventure. Thus, if your blog suddenly disappears or is abandoned, then we will know for sure what happens in China when you do those things..
So the question is whether code written by IBM actually belongs to SCO? Did the license IBM agree to in order to Develop AIX and Dynix state that all code developed by IBM and added to Sys-V in order to develop a derived product will belong to another party? I just can't imagine that IBM would have agreed to that. It doesn't even make sense. Why would IBm develop a product for another company's benefit and not their own?
This issue is not whether the man's position is not correct. The issue that should be proven is that he is correct.
The commonly held belief is that females and males possess equivalent aptitude for subjects like Mathematics and Science. This man comes along and says that this is not true. People are offended. Then, people like you come along and dare those who are offended to prove the man wrong instead of being offended. Don't you think you have that backwards?
Of course the humor in all of this - and I am not leveling this at you - is that you can have men making ridiculously invalid arguments about how Women do not posses the same aptitude for Math and Science as they presumably possess.
Is that what those errors mean everytime I check in files? :-P
You do not have the right to express speech that incites violence or other crimes.
Nor do you have the right to express speech in such a way that causes a public disturbance. you cannot drive down your steet with a megaphone at three in the morning expressing your opinion to your neighbors whether they want to hear them, or not.
These men may represent a just cause but they do not have the right to stand in line in a government building and express views that are offensive to at least some of the people who work there. The jokes they made were clearly not speech between themselves but speech broadcasted to the entire room with the intent to force the people present to listen to their case. Not only was that wrong, they were offensive to the lawyers who worked there.
I am not fond of lawyers either but I still respect them as I would like to be respected. If a lawyer happened to come to my place of work and decided to broadcast stupid jokes meant to be offensive to software engineers, I would want the removed as well.
In any case, I doubt an external party (another agency) would be able to piece it together. There would most likely be only the minimum necessary number of people who would be aware of something like that as it would - in my opinion at least - constitute high treason. And as such, it's not like they would email out a memo about it.
In any case, I think you are placing far too much competence on these people (groups 1 - 9 that is). I have often found conspiracy theories a bit quaint considering the dipshits that are appointed to run the agencies.
Also, with no vibrations, should not the stars be smeared in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation? If so - and if the distance of their smears roughly corresponds to the distance at which they should travel across the sky in two minutes (I am not certain that they would travel that far however) - then the vibration theory could be discounted.
Also note that the amplitudes are not uniform. If the object was indeed traveling in some sort of cork-screw fashion, then it would seem likely that from most vantage points, the amplitudes would increase and decrease; unless the camera was positioned such that it pointed perpendicular to the comets trajectory.
And then by the same reasoning, the frequency should appear to decrease as the object approaches. But the frequency seems to stay uniform.
This is a weird photo.
That source code and every storage device it was ever stored on in any form is most likely being burned as we type.
You bet.
Tip: Don't write posts on the Internet that advocate lining people up and shooting them when one of those people happen to be the U.S. President (Unless you live in the U.K. and write for the Guardian of course).
Stop-Loss is not the "agreement that you can be called upon even to serve again even after your tour of duty" which describes the inactive period of enlistment, but an executive order that actually changes the contract such that you cannot separate according to contract. I am not even sure if "stop-loss" was actually in the contract that many of these people signed (It is probably in there now).
Another issue is the fact that many people were mislead into the Guard and Reserves thinking their positions could not be sent overseas. When I separated from active duty, they tried to convince myself and a few others separating at the same time to sign up for the Air National Guard. I was told that if I signed a certain contract, then if a war occurred, the worst that could happen is that we would be sent to CONUS bases to fill in for people who have been deployed. I know one person who believed that. He is now deployed "overseas".
Yet your computer most likely did not come with the unpatched Firefox browser where many computers - until recently - still shipped with pre-SP2 XP and the same unpatched version of IE.
However, if your computer did come with your unpatched Firefox installed as the default browser instead of IE, then would not the first web page you see after firing up the browser for the first time say something like: "Your version of Firefox is out of date and requires a security update. Click here to update it"?
err... shouldn't that really be burn and crash?
Yet they are EQUALLY susceptible to vote tampering. That was all I was hinting. I still think that we should have a more robust system as you said as it is easier to catch the tampering.
In case you don't know about the policy, it is essentially a government regulated cap on the amount of specifiv polluting effluents in a particular region. That means, when this is reched, which it was, then no new industries can be introduced into that zone. What happens is that a demand is created for pollution capacities. When the cap was set in place, if your firm produced X amount of a pollutant, then that firm is given X shares of a pollution "stock". If the company upgrades their capacity, and thus reduces their impact on the environment, they can sell that stock on the market. It actually works. That is what I am talking about.
It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.
Then prove it. I don't follow the liberal/environmentalist party-line so I will read it with an open mind. I have taken macro/micro econ as well as environmental science and policy as an undergrad. I am pretty sure I could follow your argument so make it.
I am not going to break-down your anecdote. The problem with it is that you completely disregard factors such as improved efficiency. When a company is forced to reinvest into cleaner technologies, they do not go out willy-nilly and purchase more expensive versions of the same technologies they are using. They usually purchase more efficient technologies. This creates a demand for such technologies and markets open up to satiate that demand. Consider what has happened in the "Bubble Policy" where the government made it profitable for business to clean themselves up. It has generated new industries to help businesses become more profitable by becoming cleaner. Kyoto could be implemented nationally any many forms and not all of them would cause the little story you described.
Wow, how intelligent. You even write like Bush.
This argument is not new. The same things happened when Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. This same tired argument was made then (as well as corporate threats).
And before somebody hits "reply", no, it is not the fault of the Kyoto treaty that these corporations are threatening to outsource jobs if it is passed. It is a result of Bush's crappy trade policies and lack of concern for outsourcing in general. If you are so worried about outsourcing, then you should be doubly concerned about the "tax reforms" Bush says we need so badly.
Chicago 1960.
The irony is that one of the biggest voting groups for Bush is the lower middle class. Most of these people are either not college-educated, possess a two-year degree, or work in a trade. These people are the primary victims of Bush's tax cut bonanza and his lack of concern for outsourcing.
If God didn't make them do this to themselves, then what should we call them?
Perhaps you could also add to the list a differing business model. Currently, the high cost of packaging, marketing, and selling games at EB and Gamestop is pretty expensive. I can imagine a few twists on the open-source and shareware models that may work as well.