There are even (gasp) lawyers who don't believe in the way the current system is.
So, why did they become lawyers then? Am I supposed to believe that all the ambulance chasers and one-click-patenters out there wanted (at least initially) justice for all, not money for themselves? That it's just the dark side of the force that has corrupted them?
No. The "current system" is defined by
too many lawyers (so that there is heavy competition. if you want clients, you'll need to promise a lot (basically "get away with murder"). And if you want to keep clients, you'll
have to deliver on that)
too many, too complex laws (written by -what a coincidence- lawyers)
too many legal pitfalls on every field of enterprise (so that you need lawyers to defend yourself against the many lawyers employed by your competitors)
Years ago, during that(!) bubble everyone and their dog scrambled to become "IT specialists".
Now, after the burst, the "get rich quick" types are back to the legal field, because of the rush for "intellectual property". Anyone taking bets bet on when that particular bubble bursts?
Also, most crimes that go to court result in conviction (well over 90%).
And that is supposed to mean the system works and society is safe? THINK AGAIN!
A 90-plus percent conviction rate says nothing about
crimes that go undetected (obviously not part of any statistc)
crimes that never go to court (lack of evidence/suspects, or shady deals with the DA)
innocent people being convicted (erroneously, or -even worse- deliberately)
I'm not advocating crime (i concur with other posters in suggesting a political career instead), but i recommend scepticism towards these bogus statistics. Especially with the current abrogation of civil rights, the conviction rate is about the worst metric for the qality of a judicial system
And make no mistake: a right taken from a "suspected terrorist" is a right taken from YOU.
Just wait until your name shows up on some computer-generated list of (probable) suspects.
But coming back to conviction rates: history has quite a few examples of systems with really high conviction rates. You might want to read up on Cheka, NKWD, GESTAPO,
STASI,.. All of these have one thing in common: they were not bound by the law they were (supposed) to uphold. Then read on about Camp X-Ray.
[..] you completely ignore fixed costs, which must be amortized over all items sold. [..]
What fixed costs are incurred by the RIAA? buying politicians, exorbitant management salaries, keeping an army of lawyers?
The often-quoted "one successful album has to cover for ten others that never pay their own cost" is a red herring. This industry has been flooding the market with (mostly) unsuccessful products. Do they reconsider their buiseness model? No! They just raise the prices.
Thought experiment: Let's suppose the music industry managed to double their monthly output of new products. Does that double their sales? Unlikely, because all these products compete for the same amount of money that the customers are willing/able to spend on music.
Following their argument, they now have to raise the prices. But wait! Didn't we assume a fixed amount of money avaliable to the customers? If the market volume (amount of $ spent) is constant, a price hike decreases the number of sales. Uh Oh! Now even more albums fail to break even, so the prices have to go up even more...
Moral: The RIAA's busines model is broken. We know it, they know it. But instead of fixing it, they decided to "invest" in political influence.
[speaking of GWB..]
He has quite an education, and it's simply not true that you can buy that sort of education if you're stupid
Bought -as opposed to earned- as in "being admitted to the 'champagne squad' of jet pilots in the local reserve (even though his test scores wer in the lower 25%)"?
At the very least, he's smarter and more knowledgeable than the average person.
So thats why his own staff nicknamed him "Advisee-in-Chief" and he still needs to sit in Dick Cheneys lap to testify before the 9/11 comission?
Say what you like, but you know you're lying
You, Mr. Anonymous Coward, are certainly free to believe that your president is smart, knowlegeable (and honest, and...). The question is, does that belief (a.k.a. The Fuehrer is always right!) justify calling those who dissent liars?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Saddam was a Nice Guy(tm). </attempted_sarcasm>
Why, yes, he obiviously was.. at least at the time when Donald Rumsfeld was on his sales tour for the US chemical industry. Who cared about Saddam gassing the kurds with the stuff he bought? As long as he was keeping these damn ayatollahs in check Saddam was the US's buddy in the golf region.
He only became an official Bad Guy(tm) when he went for kuweiti oil wells (that the US had been considering part of "their reserves").
This "paper" you refer to is nothing but a bunch of academic gobbledy-gook. [...] I don't care how many damn footnote links are in the paper, or how many big words they use!
Yeah, an' denial is a river in Egypt...
I have read that paper (when it was first published in response to the original CAPPS) and
consider their reasoning to be correct.
You mean.. just like the European Parliament.. they should not have ratified that BS after the Commission not only ignored their earlier comments (no "pure software" patents) but sneaked in even more draconic measures?. Dream on!
Lets face it, politicians will pass just about anything into law and let the courts (if any) sort it out. This has nothing to do with the actual contents of the bills in question; politicians pass law after law because thats how they understand their job. They just dont want do be seen as lazy or unproductive.
So why should they rock the boat by dismissing the work of commissions and lobbyists? Especially if they want lucrative (post-parliament) careers with the very same people...
The patent office gets the same amount of money whether they approve or don't approve a patent.
You ignore the time spent on "earning" that processing fee. Proper research (as in, actually looking for prior art) takes considerably more time than rubberstamping an application. Meaning: the USPTO loses revenue every time a patent examiner spends more than the alloted amount of time (a few hours) on a single application.
If you listen to the head of the USPTO, they take immense pride in being the only "profitable" government organisation. Being profit-oriented means:
favor the paying customer (who cares about the public)
streamline approval (who cares about prior art)
ignore criticism (whoever is hurt by a patent, they can go to court.. on their own expense...)
This approach (make a buck now, have somone else handle consequences) is rather common in the government; Even presidents have shown no qualms about turning dubious bills into bad law. Who cares if a law is later repealed as unconstitutional? THEY give a shit!
To be frank -- if not politically correct -- and with the risk of offending our German friends, the U.S. is far less likely to repeat slavery (or Native American genocide), than Germany is to oppress its Turkish or other minorities.
LOL. If any nation holds a patent on "ignore history, repeat its errors" that would be the U.S... But -- as you were speaking of slavery --
There has obviously been progess from the classical way of slave-holding (imagine the outrageous cost of importing, keeping and feeding them). Nowadays, there is no need to spend any money on would-be slaves. Just have their local chieftains pass laws "harmonizing the market", then send your lawyers to claim the rewards of their labor for your coffers.
Todays system is called "Intellectual Property" and we are called "consumers". But in the end it still means "we own you".
> What kind of scam is that for blood and possibly urine workups?
Medical tests (e.g. the kind your doctor would run) check for substances that are part of your metabolism. The diagnostic information is in "too high" or "too low" values or "wrong ratio"s between others.
The tests mentioned in the article are checking for alien substances in comparatively small amounts, either specifically (tests for known agents) or with general-purpose-but-expensive methods like gas chromatography, mass spectrometry etc.
Kinda like CSI (with the "subject" still living;-).
Knowledge contaminates and subverts all the hard work you put into optimistic reports and jubilant sales pitches. Fear knowledge, because even the suspicion "he might have known" will reduce your status from "successful executive" or even "visioneer" to "goddam liar".
Forget that review! What's the point in having a Desktop "your Mom and Pop will understand" when you're actually targeting the corporate market ("1000 Desktops administrated by a single IT worker")?
Sun is still hawking their "thin clients" model, just replacing proprietary hardware that no-one bought with commodity hardware that everyone is supposed to have (and a certain OS for i386 machines that (only?) Sun is entitled to use without fear of lawsuits, sez SCO...)
So, What's the real deal? Sun wants to capture the corporate desktop to keep their rapidly declining server business alive (Fat chance...). To reach that goal, they are now trying to "Embrace and Extend" Linux, even to the extreme of actively supporting SCO.
I dont think it's going to work. Sun should just crawl off to where the other dinosaurs went.
About the number of boxes: yes, it's a bit of a mess because DSL is piggybacked onto the same copper pair that serves your phone (POTS or ISDN).
Thus you have:
a frequency splitter
an ISDN box (only if you want ISDN; nowadays POTS supports caller-ID and stuff too)
the DSL Modem which connects to
an ethernet port in your PC or
(preferrably) your router/firewall
They used to "loan" you all 3 boxes (including their modem) but after some deregulation you are now "allowed" (yeah,right) to buy the DSL modem of your choice. On the plus side, this means you could save one box by putting an ADSL card into your computer, but these are rather pricey and (what's worse) windows-only. And we all know that connecting any windows-boxen directly to the internet is a Bad Idea(TM).
There are combination "Router/Firewall/Switch" Boxes that allow for easy setup of a home LAN (prices vary, some need a separate DSL modem, others have a built-in one and connect directly to the splitter).
Personally, i have an old-style Telekom-issue DSL modem (can be had on german ebay) and a linux-based router built from spare parts.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why did they become lawyers then? Am I supposed to believe that all the ambulance chasers and one-click-patenters out there wanted (at least initially) justice for all, not money for themselves? That it's just the dark side of the force that has corrupted them?
No. The "current system" is defined by
Years ago, during that(!) bubble everyone and their dog scrambled to become "IT specialists". Now, after the burst, the "get rich quick" types are back to the legal field, because of the rush for "intellectual property". Anyone taking bets bet on when that particular bubble bursts?
.. maybe they need more coders to work on getting Windows XP SP2 out ASAP?
That would make sense only if one believes that
Both of these assumptions are somewhat problematic. ;-)
But hey, that doesnt mean Microsoft is not trying to do just that
And that is supposed to mean the system works and society is safe? THINK AGAIN!
A 90-plus percent conviction rate says nothing about
- crimes that go undetected (obviously not part of any statistc)
- crimes that never go to court (lack of evidence/suspects, or shady deals with the DA)
- innocent people being convicted (erroneously, or -even worse- deliberately)
I'm not advocating crime (i concur with other posters in suggesting a political career instead), but i recommend scepticism towards these bogus statistics. Especially with the current abrogation of civil rights, the conviction rate is about the worst metric for the qality of a judicial systemAnd make no mistake: a right taken from a "suspected terrorist" is a right taken from YOU. Just wait until your name shows up on some computer-generated list of (probable) suspects.
But coming back to conviction rates: history has quite a few examples of systems with really high conviction rates. You might want to read up on Cheka, NKWD, GESTAPO, STASI, .. All of these have one thing in common: they were not bound by the law they were (supposed) to uphold. Then read on about Camp X-Ray.
What fixed costs are incurred by the RIAA? buying politicians, exorbitant management salaries, keeping an army of lawyers?
The often-quoted "one successful album has to cover for ten others that never pay their own cost" is a red herring. This industry has been flooding the market with (mostly) unsuccessful products. Do they reconsider their buiseness model? No! They just raise the prices.
Thought experiment: Let's suppose the music industry managed to double their monthly output of new products. Does that double their sales? Unlikely, because all these products compete for the same amount of money that the customers are willing/able to spend on music.
Following their argument, they now have to raise the prices. But wait! Didn't we assume a fixed amount of money avaliable to the customers? If the market volume (amount of $ spent) is constant, a price hike decreases the number of sales. Uh Oh! Now even more albums fail to break even, so the prices have to go up even more...
Moral: The RIAA's busines model is broken. We know it, they know it. But instead of fixing it, they decided to "invest" in political influence.
Bought -as opposed to earned- as in "being admitted to the 'champagne squad' of jet pilots in the local reserve (even though his test scores wer in the lower 25%)"?
At the very least, he's smarter and more knowledgeable than the average person.
So thats why his own staff nicknamed him "Advisee-in-Chief" and he still needs to sit in Dick Cheneys lap to testify before the 9/11 comission?
Say what you like, but you know you're lying
You, Mr. Anonymous Coward, are certainly free to believe that your president is smart, knowlegeable (and honest, and ...).
The question is, does that belief (a.k.a. The Fuehrer is always right!) justify calling those who dissent liars?
Why, yes, he obiviously was .. at least at the time when Donald Rumsfeld was on his sales tour for the US chemical industry. Who cared about Saddam gassing the kurds with the stuff he bought? As long as he was keeping these damn ayatollahs in check Saddam was the US's buddy in the golf region.
He only became an official Bad Guy(tm) when he went for kuweiti oil wells (that the US had been considering part of "their reserves").
Yeah, an' denial is a river in Egypt ...
I have read that paper (when it was first published in response to the original CAPPS) and consider their reasoning to be correct.
For more info on dubious "Passenger Prescreening" proposals see Bruce Schneier on "i'm not at Terrorist" cards
You mean .. just like the European Parliament .. they should not have ratified that BS after the Commission not only ignored their earlier comments (no "pure software" patents) but sneaked in even more draconic measures?. Dream on!
Lets face it, politicians will pass just about anything into law and let the courts (if any) sort it out. This has nothing to do with the actual contents of the bills in question; politicians pass law after law because thats how they understand their job. They just dont want do be seen as lazy or unproductive.
So why should they rock the boat by dismissing the work of commissions and lobbyists? Especially if they want lucrative (post-parliament) careers with the very same people ...
You ignore the time spent on "earning" that processing fee. Proper research (as in, actually looking for prior art) takes considerably more time than rubberstamping an application. Meaning: the USPTO loses revenue every time a patent examiner spends more than the alloted amount of time (a few hours) on a single application.
This approach (make a buck now, have somone else handle consequences) is rather common in the government; Even presidents have shown no qualms about turning dubious bills into bad law. Who cares if a law is later repealed as unconstitutional? THEY give a shit!
LOL. If any nation holds a patent on "ignore history, repeat its errors" that would be the U.S. .. But -- as you were speaking of slavery --
There has obviously been progess from the classical way of slave-holding (imagine the outrageous cost of importing, keeping and feeding them). Nowadays, there is no need to spend any money on would-be slaves. Just have their local chieftains pass laws "harmonizing the market", then send your lawyers to claim the rewards of their labor for your coffers.
Todays system is called "Intellectual Property" and we are called "consumers". But in the end it still means "we own you".
Medical tests (e.g. the kind your doctor would run) check for substances that are part of your metabolism. The diagnostic information is in "too high" or "too low" values or "wrong ratio"s between others.
The tests mentioned in the article are checking for alien substances in comparatively small amounts, either specifically (tests for known agents) or with general-purpose-but-expensive methods like gas chromatography, mass spectrometry etc.
Kinda like CSI (with the "subject" still living ;-).
Knowledge contaminates and subverts all the hard work you put into optimistic reports and jubilant sales pitches. Fear knowledge, because even the suspicion "he might have known" will reduce your status from "successful executive" or even "visioneer" to "goddam liar".
Sun is still hawking their "thin clients" model, just replacing proprietary hardware that no-one bought with commodity hardware that everyone is supposed to have (and a certain OS for i386 machines that (only?) Sun is entitled to use without fear of lawsuits, sez SCO...)
So, What's the real deal? Sun wants to capture the corporate desktop to keep their rapidly declining server business alive (Fat chance...). To reach that goal, they are now trying to "Embrace and Extend" Linux, even to the extreme of actively supporting SCO.
I dont think it's going to work. Sun should just crawl off to where the other dinosaurs went.
Thus you have:
- a frequency splitter
- an ISDN box (only if you want ISDN; nowadays POTS supports caller-ID and stuff too)
- the DSL Modem which connects to
- an ethernet port in your PC or
- (preferrably) your router/firewall
They used to "loan" you all 3 boxes (including their modem) but after some deregulation you are now "allowed" (yeah,right) to buy the DSL modem of your choice. On the plus side, this means you could save one box by putting an ADSL card into your computer, but these are rather pricey and (what's worse) windows-only. And we all know that connecting any windows-boxen directly to the internet is a Bad Idea(TM).There are combination "Router/Firewall/Switch" Boxes that allow for easy setup of a home LAN (prices vary, some need a separate DSL modem, others have a built-in one and connect directly to the splitter).
Personally, i have an old-style Telekom-issue DSL modem (can be had on german ebay) and a linux-based router built from spare parts.