I'm curious what it would take to lead to another revolution. Are the same people who get pissed off about corporate control of government, the same people who would take up arms to stop it? And would a revolution even change anything, if most citizens' eyes just glaze over on any topic like this?
But I wasn't asking if there's a single case where patents are stopping advances in this area. I was asking the GP if he really meant it when he implied that the majority of advances never hits the market because of patent concerns. And if so, why reason he had for believing that.
I think that especially with debates about patents, questions regarding how extensive are the downsides or benefits of patents become quite important.
I agree patents are an awful problem, but are you sure about your "mostly" claim? I.e., how do you know that most promised technologies simply don't pan out well enough to be commericially viable?
I'm about your age. My impression is that new learning is still possible, but it requires more time and effort. So I'd say it partially depends on how motivated you are.
I can't get at the link right now, but in the discussion of this on BoingBoing.net, someone pointed out a number of other troubling opt-outs that LinkedIn had set for me.
When I stopped and considered the minor benefits I've had from LinkedIn, vs. the fact that I can no longer trust them, I cancelled my acount.
I wonder if the author is making excuses for what appears to be another incident stemming from Britain's wide-spread drinking problem. I can't think of any other country with as many stories of the form "restricted-access data from XXX was left in a pub by a contractor/employee with company/agency YYY". Maybe it's just that the British press covers this expecially aggressively, or maybe it's really that too many Brittons are foolish and irresponsible about alcholol consumption.
To me it was a fun, marginally campy movie. Daniel Craig does a pretty good job playing the tough guy. I didn't go in looking for a life-changing experience, and I came of the theater having enjoyed myself.
I guess each has his own opinion, but I still don't understanding the hating some people have for this movie, given its limited ambitions in the first place.
I can explain for myself. I'm not trying to open a debate, but just to give an explanation:
My primary reason is that Republicans generally vote against abortion rights, and Democrats for them. (Let's not debate this here; there's no hope of changing each other's minds right here and now.)
That being said, I'm finding it harder to justify voting for either Republicans or Democrats now. Republicans strike me as amazingly short-sighted regarding environmental issues and workplace safety. They appear clearly in the pockets of oil companies and others. And they almost never end up following through on their grandiose claims about state's rights and smaller federal government.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are also acting so unwisely in my mind that I can't happily vote for them either. There's the abortion thing as mentioned above. But I think there's lots of evidence that their desire for a welfare state just doesn't work well. And Obama fulfilled none of my hopes for him: prosecuting the NSA for illegal wiretaps; prosecuting the CIA for torture; etc. And they appear to have made extremely poor decision regarding economic stimulus and bank bailouts. In fact, the bank bailouts appear to have greatly favored bank welfare over borrower / mortgage-holder welfare, which betrays the populist reputation the Democrats' seem like holding.
It seems to me that technical bachelors degrees involve less learning than they did maybe 40 years ago. So maybe a Master's degree these days == the same level of technical education as a bachelor's degree 40 years ago?
First of all, any admission of guilt at that point is compelled and therefore less credible. (An exception would be if the witness then provided evidence to his crime, i.e., showed where a body was burried.) So while it might validate the prosecutor's intuition, it very well might not get at the truth of the matter.
But just as importantly, it's substituting the prosecutor's judgment for that of a judge and/or jury. If a prosecutor can't make a case to the people who are supposed to ultimately decide these issues, then something is suspicious.
Finally, consider the motivations of prosecutors themselves. They're often judged (and elected) based on conviction rates and/or obtaining a conviction, any conviction, in cases about which that the public is angry. By threatening to hit a possibly innocent person with a trial that is potentially financially ruinous, drawn out, and could yield a false conviction, a prosecutor can use plea agreements to secure convitions for his own political aspirations, regardless of the guilt or innocense of the accused.
It seems what we then is a prosecutor who decided a man's potential level of punishment, based (presumably) on whether or not the man was going to force the prosecution to undergo the cost and inconvenience of a trial. I.e., the full extent of punishment being sought was not based on the crime, but on the prosecutor feeling inconvenienced.
Although reasonable people can disagree about what would be just in some situations, I think we should all be in agreeement on this matter.
The government had other options available in your case.
Given your circumstances, the prosecutor could have chosen to dismiss the case. Or the judge could have possibly updated your record with a mere warning or traditional ticket, and acquitted you of the criminal charges.
But I shouls also note that your situation is a little different. You weren't offered a plea when you were in fact innocent. You were offered a plea when you were certainly guilty (but with extenuating circumstances).
That being said, you still paid a fixed fee to avoid the risk of a certain judgment from the court. Basically you were buying your way out of the risk of a capricious legal systems. I don't believe you should have had to make that calculation.
Absent plea deals, the entire system would break down due to lack of enforcement. Just how many trials can the state run? How many courtrooms are really available for said trials? Logistics...
That should not be the accused's problem to solve. However, one might consider these options:
Only enact laws which most people agree with (i.e., higher speed limits)
Is that prosecutors are allowed to offer plea deals.
If the prosecutor believes crimes were committed, then file charges. If not, don't.
If people are cowed into pleaing guilty (or no contest) to charges to which they believe they're innocent due to legal costs or fears of false conviction, the solution is radical reform of the legal system. NOT to create a gray area of semi-crime, semi-guilt, and semi-punishement. That is *not* innocence until proven guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
But how does the cost of an SSD compare, to 2 years of a worked being unproductive for an extra 7 minutes / day?
I'm curious what it would take to lead to another revolution. Are the same people who get pissed off about corporate control of government, the same people who would take up arms to stop it? And would a revolution even change anything, if most citizens' eyes just glaze over on any topic like this?
I've read that binding-arbitration contracts can sometimes be successfully challenged in cases of fraud.
If so, where do I sign on to the lawsuit for fraud?
But I wasn't asking if there's a single case where patents are stopping advances in this area. I was asking the GP if he really meant it when he implied that the majority of advances never hits the market because of patent concerns. And if so, why reason he had for believing that.
I think that especially with debates about patents, questions regarding how extensive are the downsides or benefits of patents become quite important.
I agree patents are an awful problem, but are you sure about your "mostly" claim? I.e., how do you know that most promised technologies simply don't pan out well enough to be commericially viable?
I'm fairly confident that they're all 3-5 years away from the market.
I'm about your age. My impression is that new learning is still possible, but it requires more time and effort. So I'd say it partially depends on how motivated you are.
I can't get at the link right now, but in the discussion of this on BoingBoing.net, someone pointed out a number of other troubling opt-outs that LinkedIn had set for me.
When I stopped and considered the minor benefits I've had from LinkedIn, vs. the fact that I can no longer trust them, I cancelled my acount.
I'm a computer geek to the core. Nothing can fix my love life.
Work on being an excellent person. Love will almost certainly follow.
Freakin' open-source zealots...
No, we don't all.
I wonder if the author is making excuses for what appears to be another incident stemming from Britain's wide-spread drinking problem. I can't think of any other country with as many stories of the form "restricted-access data from XXX was left in a pub by a contractor/employee with company/agency YYY". Maybe it's just that the British press covers this expecially aggressively, or maybe it's really that too many Brittons are foolish and irresponsible about alcholol consumption.
To me it was a fun, marginally campy movie. Daniel Craig does a pretty good job playing the tough guy. I didn't go in looking for a life-changing experience, and I came of the theater having enjoyed myself.
I guess each has his own opinion, but I still don't understanding the hating some people have for this movie, given its limited ambitions in the first place.
I can explain for myself. I'm not trying to open a debate, but just to give an explanation:
My primary reason is that Republicans generally vote against abortion rights, and Democrats for them. (Let's not debate this here; there's no hope of changing each other's minds right here and now.)
That being said, I'm finding it harder to justify voting for either Republicans or Democrats now. Republicans strike me as amazingly short-sighted regarding environmental issues and workplace safety. They appear clearly in the pockets of oil companies and others. And they almost never end up following through on their grandiose claims about state's rights and smaller federal government.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are also acting so unwisely in my mind that I can't happily vote for them either. There's the abortion thing as mentioned above. But I think there's lots of evidence that their desire for a welfare state just doesn't work well. And Obama fulfilled none of my hopes for him: prosecuting the NSA for illegal wiretaps; prosecuting the CIA for torture; etc. And they appear to have made extremely poor decision regarding economic stimulus and bank bailouts. In fact, the bank bailouts appear to have greatly favored bank welfare over borrower / mortgage-holder welfare, which betrays the populist reputation the Democrats' seem like holding.
It seems to me that technical bachelors degrees involve less learning than they did maybe 40 years ago. So maybe a Master's degree these days == the same level of technical education as a bachelor's degree 40 years ago?
IT Day Shift Workers: Fat and Undersexed
Then why don't they pass up on that money?
Agreed. They need their corporations disolved for having violated their charters.
Sure, but consider a few downsides.
First of all, any admission of guilt at that point is compelled and therefore less credible. (An exception would be if the witness then provided evidence to his crime, i.e., showed where a body was burried.) So while it might validate the prosecutor's intuition, it very well might not get at the truth of the matter.
But just as importantly, it's substituting the prosecutor's judgment for that of a judge and/or jury. If a prosecutor can't make a case to the people who are supposed to ultimately decide these issues, then something is suspicious.
Finally, consider the motivations of prosecutors themselves. They're often judged (and elected) based on conviction rates and/or obtaining a conviction, any conviction, in cases about which that the public is angry. By threatening to hit a possibly innocent person with a trial that is potentially financially ruinous, drawn out, and could yield a false conviction, a prosecutor can use plea agreements to secure convitions for his own political aspirations, regardless of the guilt or innocense of the accused.
It seems what we then is a prosecutor who decided a man's potential level of punishment, based (presumably) on whether or not the man was going to force the prosecution to undergo the cost and inconvenience of a trial. I.e., the full extent of punishment being sought was not based on the crime, but on the prosecutor feeling inconvenienced.
Although reasonable people can disagree about what would be just in some situations, I think we should all be in agreeement on this matter.
Plea Deals speed up due process...
At the cost of someone being innoctent until proven guilty. In my opinion that's a terrible trade-off.
The government had other options available in your case.
Given your circumstances, the prosecutor could have chosen to dismiss the case. Or the judge could have possibly updated your record with a mere warning or traditional ticket, and acquitted you of the criminal charges.
But I shouls also note that your situation is a little different. You weren't offered a plea when you were in fact innocent. You were offered a plea when you were certainly guilty (but with extenuating circumstances).
That being said, you still paid a fixed fee to avoid the risk of a certain judgment from the court. Basically you were buying your way out of the risk of a capricious legal systems. I don't believe you should have had to make that calculation.
That should not be the accused's problem to solve. However, one might consider these options:
Is that prosecutors are allowed to offer plea deals.
If the prosecutor believes crimes were committed, then file charges. If not, don't.
If people are cowed into pleaing guilty (or no contest) to charges to which they believe they're innocent due to legal costs or fears of false conviction, the solution is radical reform of the legal system. NOT to create a gray area of semi-crime, semi-guilt, and semi-punishement. That is *not* innocence until proven guilty.
"Copyright maximialists are anti-business, anti-economic-growth, anti-jobs."