Well, i just patented the process for patenting the patenting process, so you owe me money from each case you win against someone who submits a patent. also, i patented the process for patenting the process for patenting the patenting process, and patented the process for that process, and just now patented the process for patenting an infinite recursion of processes designed to patent all patent processes.
manufacturing cigarettes=murder. Tobacco companies are making your precise argument. Why are we granting limited liability status to companies engaged in antisocial, dangerous behaviors? companies gain certain protections in exchange for a degree of oversight from US (as represented by the govt) that they wont engage in socially deleterious behavior. dont make a plant illegal. just take away legal protections for the sale of such products. The day i can personally sue a tobacco manufacture, and they have no legal recourse in corporate law, is the day both progressives and honest libertarians rejoice. same with selling guns to the public, or all other drugs. make them cottage industries with no government protection for the makers, but with heavy personal penalties for shoddy manufacture, etc.
Vegans are wrong. There is no evidence i know of for any traditional societies being vegan. if veganism was so good for people, you would find at least some tribes practicing it. they dont. meat is highly concentrated nutrition, esp. fish and its omega 3's, and is only harmful the way modern people indulge in poor quality sources. no way primitive man harvested flax seeds for the oil. The book "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon gives lots of evidence for the benefits of a diet high in meat, animal fat, and sprouted/fermented foods (free range, organic, bla bla bla always better, and olive/coconut/palm oils over all other veggie oils). The ethical problems with meat are real, though. Animals are semi-sentient, and have feelings just as real as ours. We do not have a right to kill them. but nature didnt consider our feelings about this when letting us evolve. can you imagine if we were obligate carnivores, like cats? to evolve an ethics of meat would be challenging beyond belief. The best i can come up with is a combination of the ethics behind "Should Trees Have Standing", the idea that we are stewards of the earth, and the work of Temple Grandin. Species deserve legal standing in our courts, even more so than "endangered", as should ecosystems. Domesticated animals are now under our stewardship. in exchange for a short but stress free life, we can argue that we can kill them for our needs (requires strict adherence to humane practices). We need to research our humane animal practices to really understand what can help them to avoid suffering (as Grandin does). Vegans are right about factory farming, so they are like hardcore Marxists and other religious nuts. not afraid to point out a social ill (thank you, sincerely), and batshit crazy in their dogmatic application of a narrow, fixed set of ideas to the problem.
Atheism is the Null Hypothesis. its only that, a hypothesis, stated more forcefully than agnosticism, which is more of a guideline. we COULD find evidence of a sentient, immensely powerful creator. maybe not the god of the entire universe, but a god of our corner of it. we havent really found it yet (at least by any external, measurable standards). however, most atheists deny the possibility of there being a god, rather than simply stating that all we know about the world can be explained without the presence of the judeochristianislamic deity. For this reason, they may be considered a religion, as they have a dogmatic tenet that cannot be explained logically or supported by evidence/proof of the inability to provide evidence for the contrary. By the way, in the US, the government gets to determine if your belief system qualifies as a religion, so that you can have tax free status for your organization. if that isnt "promoting a religion" i dont know what is. My "religion" is exactly what i say it is, and i dont need the fucking govt giving its imprimatur. IF we believed in our constitution (which we dont) we would have 2 tax structures: nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations, based solely on the financial structure of the company, with no consideration for whether or not it, or anyone else, considers it a "religion". for some, their favorite business, or their employer, IS a religion. so what? The truth is, every single person on earth has a set of beliefs and other ideas that classify them in their own private religion of one, as no dogmatic belief system is ever truly believed by anyone in its entirety. (esp. in emphasis on certain aspects of it, we are all unique).
That was very nice how he politely got around the fact that boys social development, even under ideal circumstances, is so far behind the average females social development as to barely register as such. Unless we make a supreme effort to work on our social skills, and consciously try to "grow", we are social idiots. Basement/moms house memes have a basis in reality.
aw, they were all sucky like that until at least a few years later. check the version histories. no references, etc. the model for WP was the opposite of FEDEX, which began business day one with a complete fleet of trucks, planes, computers, staff, etc, so that the first packages would get there, regardless of the losses incurred for operating on standby that day. I came late to WP, but those sucky articles are probably one reason it didnt become popular until later.
Nature has announced "principles of biology", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Biology]. I think this one area of publishing is a no brainer for ebooks. I like their model. Of course, this would put a lot of back doctors out of business.
reassuring to us, maybe, but if germs could think, they would be all "wow, 25% of our target population has no clue that they are sitting ducks for our assault. our enemy is doing our work for us. relax, weve won this war before its started!" as a species, we are basically stupider than bacteria on an aggregate scale. we are actively, in a multitude of arenas, destroying ourselves. overpopulation, religious fundamentalism, nuclear power, global warming, gun manufacturing as a major force in politics, just enough science education to harm ourselves, uncontrolled male aggression, uncontrolled female acceptance of male aggression, antibiotics overuse, deforestation, technology that promotes ADD symptoms... well, i could go on much longer. its a sunny day out, ill try to enjoy one more day on earth while i can.
Those are seriously useful tips. of course, i will do some reading first before indiscrimately applying them, but you are probably correct. heat, salt, alcohol, our own immune system: pretty good stuff, not easy for bacteria to evolve defenses against. like cedar oil against insects, the cedar tree has had strong motivation for millions of years to keep bugs away, and it works.
I dont use social media, but i am willing to mark you as "friend" (whatever that means in this context) for your dispassionate comments here about the origins of christianity. I love many of the ethical and spiritual principles found in christianity, but I also perceive an essential flaw, which you have described very elegantly. I would say this: christianity claims to be the final word, (so do other religions of course), thus it must be COMPLETE. however, we know logically that any system must have fundamental principles at its core that can neither be proved or disproved by the system. You have found 1 clear example of christianitys incompleteness. Until we can create some sort of evolutionary structure for religious belief, which doesnt have an end state to ever be reached, and which is capable of incorporating any new information, or combination of ideas, in a manner comparable with biological evolution, religions will always stand in the way of human growth, no matter how nicely dolled up they are.
I didnt want to make my post an editorial platform (just the facts, maam), but i submitted to the agency my idea: The Mind-Bogglingly Big Array. as in "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long walk down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..." I leave the determination of who (or what) said this as an exercise for the reader.
Taking photos to post on Wikimedia Commons, i was stopped by a security guard while photographing the entrance to an indoor mall from the private parking lot outside it. the moment he pulled up, i figured it out: private property, photographing elements of that property that can qualify as elements of commerce. I apologized and took no more photos. the guard did not confiscate my camera, or even ask me to delete any photos i took (very civilized of him). However, its a gray area. Suspicious behavior could reasonably be seen as taking multiple photos of private property from that property. taking a photo of your child, even on a playset there, is so obviously not suspicious or inappropriate, its worth lawyering up over. its all about social mores and reasonable right to privacy, along with the semi-public semi-private status of malls and stores. stores cannot absolutely bar anyone they want without some indication of a reason that doesnt violate civil rights laws. I can bar anyone (aside from police with warrants or emergency personnel) i want from entering my home for any reason, without stating the reason. companies are given certain privileges to operate on behalf of the public, and are also given certain protections in the deal. its a give and take. lots of qualifiers. thats why he have judges, and not computers, figuring out the law. and why police should remember their role as defenders of social values. why not simply educate the citizen of the rules regarding photography, and suggest that if he wants to photograph his child in front of a store display, talk with the store manager? they may like the idea. winners all around.
Remember all the visionary engineers, software authors, designers, etc who put all those years into creating stuff that steve either asked for, or discovered and went crazy for. If apple continues to treat them like precious gold (overworked gold), then apple can still be loved without steve at the helm.
a coworker told me about his death, but when i heard it on the radio a half hour later, I cried. I LOVED my mac plus. Nothing will EVER replace it in my heart.
re your sig: You know what? you're right. Oh, but now you are wrong.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
to expand on the arguments of open source and free software advocates, I dont think a for profit company driven by stockholder demand for profits can do anything but create some form of walled garden. If we were serious about demanding open platforms etc etc we would insist on democratic, nonprofit control of computing platforms. access to the network should be considered the same as freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. If we leave access to private companies, we get what we have now. Steve was the hands down greatest visionary working WITHIN this system. He couldnt do it much different even if had wanted to. He gave us as much freedom as a private company could create, and gave us tools to make the use of this freedom as straightforward as possible. If we want to continue his legacy, we would probably need to overthrow the technocracy/corporatocracy, and create democratic, privacy protecting social networks, funded by all of us. Good luck nationalizing the whole lot of them (and i am fully aware that nationalization just may have its own problems...) ps. i hope that Apple can celebrate its scores of engineers and designers. only they, as a group, can come close to replacing Steve as the symbol of apple.
we passed the permanent, sustainable population level some time ago. The question is, on what time scale is sustainable measured. most of the measures look at the next few centuries. we are hoping to sustain human civilization forever, so we need to balance energy in (solar, geothermal) with energy used so that what is left is enough to sustain the ecosystem and avoid butterfly effects. we also need to reuse/recycle elements and compounds as efficiently as nature (ie infinitely recycled with no actual waste). to live in this kind of world will require that the industrialized nations will have to scale back the resource use of their citizens drastically, and all other nations stop their resource use increase. we also cannot have too large a discrepancy between the highest and lowest users. I think that we could have a comfortable, if somewhat more physically strenous, lifestyle for humans worldwide, sustain our ecosystem, and have enough resources to create enough high tech stuff to explore the outer limits of our minds capacity for creativity, our planet, and space, (and provide for people with disabilities, reduce disease and eliminate starvation) with about 100 million people. i could be off by a factor of at most 10, but i doubt it. this would be enough people to be sure each generation had plenty of geniuses, savants, artists, leaders, saints, and all the interesting and rare human types. with more resources for individualized education, people would have a better sense of how to fit into the world, and would be less rapacious users of resources. we might even have more wisdom. however, humans love sex, love raising children, think tribally, and are good at dumping their waste where they cant see it. Any chance of this happening in a manner that isnt catastrophic and likely plunge us into further cycles of ignorance and suffering: slim to none. anything we can do about this: nope. anything we do now is futile and only makes us feel better individually. aside from a deus ex machina coming down and slaughtering all the idiots who stand in the way, and leaving the rest of us to enjoy our paradise, we are doomed, like the moties from mote in gods eye.
who is dick cheney to pope john pauls george w. The current pope has no chance in hell of being as loved as his predecessor. hes just a filler while the church slowly burns to the ground under its weight of contradictions and CONSCIOUSLY EVIL ACTIONS.
I've got my torch at hand. Lets go! Though I think we should round up the sociopathic execs and dictators and put them behind a wall a la Coventry by heinlein, let them fight over some wells, plows, seed and animals until they are tired of their ayn rand assholism and agree to behavior modification to rejoin society. Death is too good for them, and its ultimately just another expression of sociopathy. (and i dont want the NSA tagging me as dangerously subversive)
When you are sincere in your beliefs and are not trying to con people, it may be considered normal. but when you decieve people, exploit their fears, and encourage revolt, and when you betray the principles of your community in your public statements and actions, as Ms. Palin has done, AND when you betray the trust of your constituents, your "rulers" as we citizens are in a democracy, you have condemned yourself to the lowest levels of hell, per dante. I sincerely hope that Ms. Palin does NOT run for office, does NOT continue to be a voice on the airwaves. I pray she finds remorse for what she is doing, repents, and retires. I do not want to see civil war again in this country, and her ilk are working as hard as they can to bring it about. the tea party types and their corporate backers are much crazier than the weird little socialist groups that protest here and there trying to incite a "revolution", but they have real power, and are wielding it with as much cunning as they can muster. This is, as Hunter Thompson would say "bad craziness".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, i just patented the process for patenting the patenting process, so you owe me money from each case you win against someone who submits a patent. also, i patented the process for patenting the process for patenting the patenting process, and patented the process for that process, and just now patented the process for patenting an infinite recursion of processes designed to patent all patent processes.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bezos
manufacturing cigarettes=murder. Tobacco companies are making your precise argument. Why are we granting limited liability status to companies engaged in antisocial, dangerous behaviors? companies gain certain protections in exchange for a degree of oversight from US (as represented by the govt) that they wont engage in socially deleterious behavior. dont make a plant illegal. just take away legal protections for the sale of such products. The day i can personally sue a tobacco manufacture, and they have no legal recourse in corporate law, is the day both progressives and honest libertarians rejoice. same with selling guns to the public, or all other drugs. make them cottage industries with no government protection for the makers, but with heavy personal penalties for shoddy manufacture, etc.
Vegans are wrong. There is no evidence i know of for any traditional societies being vegan. if veganism was so good for people, you would find at least some tribes practicing it. they dont. meat is highly concentrated nutrition, esp. fish and its omega 3's, and is only harmful the way modern people indulge in poor quality sources. no way primitive man harvested flax seeds for the oil. The book "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon gives lots of evidence for the benefits of a diet high in meat, animal fat, and sprouted/fermented foods (free range, organic, bla bla bla always better, and olive/coconut/palm oils over all other veggie oils). The ethical problems with meat are real, though. Animals are semi-sentient, and have feelings just as real as ours. We do not have a right to kill them. but nature didnt consider our feelings about this when letting us evolve. can you imagine if we were obligate carnivores, like cats? to evolve an ethics of meat would be challenging beyond belief. The best i can come up with is a combination of the ethics behind "Should Trees Have Standing", the idea that we are stewards of the earth, and the work of Temple Grandin. Species deserve legal standing in our courts, even more so than "endangered", as should ecosystems. Domesticated animals are now under our stewardship. in exchange for a short but stress free life, we can argue that we can kill them for our needs (requires strict adherence to humane practices). We need to research our humane animal practices to really understand what can help them to avoid suffering (as Grandin does). Vegans are right about factory farming, so they are like hardcore Marxists and other religious nuts. not afraid to point out a social ill (thank you, sincerely), and batshit crazy in their dogmatic application of a narrow, fixed set of ideas to the problem.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen, great quotes
Atheism is the Null Hypothesis. its only that, a hypothesis, stated more forcefully than agnosticism, which is more of a guideline. we COULD find evidence of a sentient, immensely powerful creator. maybe not the god of the entire universe, but a god of our corner of it. we havent really found it yet (at least by any external, measurable standards). however, most atheists deny the possibility of there being a god, rather than simply stating that all we know about the world can be explained without the presence of the judeochristianislamic deity. For this reason, they may be considered a religion, as they have a dogmatic tenet that cannot be explained logically or supported by evidence/proof of the inability to provide evidence for the contrary. By the way, in the US, the government gets to determine if your belief system qualifies as a religion, so that you can have tax free status for your organization. if that isnt "promoting a religion" i dont know what is. My "religion" is exactly what i say it is, and i dont need the fucking govt giving its imprimatur. IF we believed in our constitution (which we dont) we would have 2 tax structures: nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations, based solely on the financial structure of the company, with no consideration for whether or not it, or anyone else, considers it a "religion". for some, their favorite business, or their employer, IS a religion. so what? The truth is, every single person on earth has a set of beliefs and other ideas that classify them in their own private religion of one, as no dogmatic belief system is ever truly believed by anyone in its entirety. (esp. in emphasis on certain aspects of it, we are all unique).
What a great quote to put on a tshirt when entering an airport. I wonder if you could be arrested for wearing the declaration of independence?
That was very nice how he politely got around the fact that boys social development, even under ideal circumstances, is so far behind the average females social development as to barely register as such. Unless we make a supreme effort to work on our social skills, and consciously try to "grow", we are social idiots. Basement/moms house memes have a basis in reality.
What, the IRA? (troll)
You too?
Car choice as an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Which is of course an apt name in this case, as we are prisoners of, and in the automobile.
aw, they were all sucky like that until at least a few years later. check the version histories. no references, etc. the model for WP was the opposite of FEDEX, which began business day one with a complete fleet of trucks, planes, computers, staff, etc, so that the first packages would get there, regardless of the losses incurred for operating on standby that day. I came late to WP, but those sucky articles are probably one reason it didnt become popular until later.
Nature has announced "principles of biology", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Biology]. I think this one area of publishing is a no brainer for ebooks. I like their model. Of course, this would put a lot of back doctors out of business.
reassuring to us, maybe, but if germs could think, they would be all "wow, 25% of our target population has no clue that they are sitting ducks for our assault. our enemy is doing our work for us. relax, weve won this war before its started!" as a species, we are basically stupider than bacteria on an aggregate scale. we are actively, in a multitude of arenas, destroying ourselves. overpopulation, religious fundamentalism, nuclear power, global warming, gun manufacturing as a major force in politics, just enough science education to harm ourselves, uncontrolled male aggression, uncontrolled female acceptance of male aggression, antibiotics overuse, deforestation, technology that promotes ADD symptoms... well, i could go on much longer. its a sunny day out, ill try to enjoy one more day on earth while i can.
Those are seriously useful tips. of course, i will do some reading first before indiscrimately applying them, but you are probably correct. heat, salt, alcohol, our own immune system: pretty good stuff, not easy for bacteria to evolve defenses against. like cedar oil against insects, the cedar tree has had strong motivation for millions of years to keep bugs away, and it works.
I dont use social media, but i am willing to mark you as "friend" (whatever that means in this context) for your dispassionate comments here about the origins of christianity. I love many of the ethical and spiritual principles found in christianity, but I also perceive an essential flaw, which you have described very elegantly. I would say this: christianity claims to be the final word, (so do other religions of course), thus it must be COMPLETE. however, we know logically that any system must have fundamental principles at its core that can neither be proved or disproved by the system. You have found 1 clear example of christianitys incompleteness. Until we can create some sort of evolutionary structure for religious belief, which doesnt have an end state to ever be reached, and which is capable of incorporating any new information, or combination of ideas, in a manner comparable with biological evolution, religions will always stand in the way of human growth, no matter how nicely dolled up they are.
I didnt want to make my post an editorial platform (just the facts, maam), but i submitted to the agency my idea: The Mind-Bogglingly Big Array. as in "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long walk down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..." I leave the determination of who (or what) said this as an exercise for the reader.
Taking photos to post on Wikimedia Commons, i was stopped by a security guard while photographing the entrance to an indoor mall from the private parking lot outside it. the moment he pulled up, i figured it out: private property, photographing elements of that property that can qualify as elements of commerce. I apologized and took no more photos. the guard did not confiscate my camera, or even ask me to delete any photos i took (very civilized of him). However, its a gray area. Suspicious behavior could reasonably be seen as taking multiple photos of private property from that property. taking a photo of your child, even on a playset there, is so obviously not suspicious or inappropriate, its worth lawyering up over. its all about social mores and reasonable right to privacy, along with the semi-public semi-private status of malls and stores. stores cannot absolutely bar anyone they want without some indication of a reason that doesnt violate civil rights laws. I can bar anyone (aside from police with warrants or emergency personnel) i want from entering my home for any reason, without stating the reason. companies are given certain privileges to operate on behalf of the public, and are also given certain protections in the deal. its a give and take. lots of qualifiers. thats why he have judges, and not computers, figuring out the law. and why police should remember their role as defenders of social values. why not simply educate the citizen of the rules regarding photography, and suggest that if he wants to photograph his child in front of a store display, talk with the store manager? they may like the idea. winners all around.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." god help us.
Remember all the visionary engineers, software authors, designers, etc who put all those years into creating stuff that steve either asked for, or discovered and went crazy for. If apple continues to treat them like precious gold (overworked gold), then apple can still be loved without steve at the helm.
a coworker told me about his death, but when i heard it on the radio a half hour later, I cried. I LOVED my mac plus. Nothing will EVER replace it in my heart.
re your sig: You know what? you're right. Oh, but now you are wrong.
to expand on the arguments of open source and free software advocates, I dont think a for profit company driven by stockholder demand for profits can do anything but create some form of walled garden. If we were serious about demanding open platforms etc etc we would insist on democratic, nonprofit control of computing platforms. access to the network should be considered the same as freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. If we leave access to private companies, we get what we have now. Steve was the hands down greatest visionary working WITHIN this system. He couldnt do it much different even if had wanted to. He gave us as much freedom as a private company could create, and gave us tools to make the use of this freedom as straightforward as possible. If we want to continue his legacy, we would probably need to overthrow the technocracy/corporatocracy, and create democratic, privacy protecting social networks, funded by all of us. Good luck nationalizing the whole lot of them (and i am fully aware that nationalization just may have its own problems...) ps. i hope that Apple can celebrate its scores of engineers and designers. only they, as a group, can come close to replacing Steve as the symbol of apple.
we passed the permanent, sustainable population level some time ago. The question is, on what time scale is sustainable measured. most of the measures look at the next few centuries. we are hoping to sustain human civilization forever, so we need to balance energy in (solar, geothermal) with energy used so that what is left is enough to sustain the ecosystem and avoid butterfly effects. we also need to reuse/recycle elements and compounds as efficiently as nature (ie infinitely recycled with no actual waste). to live in this kind of world will require that the industrialized nations will have to scale back the resource use of their citizens drastically, and all other nations stop their resource use increase. we also cannot have too large a discrepancy between the highest and lowest users. I think that we could have a comfortable, if somewhat more physically strenous, lifestyle for humans worldwide, sustain our ecosystem, and have enough resources to create enough high tech stuff to explore the outer limits of our minds capacity for creativity, our planet, and space, (and provide for people with disabilities, reduce disease and eliminate starvation) with about 100 million people. i could be off by a factor of at most 10, but i doubt it. this would be enough people to be sure each generation had plenty of geniuses, savants, artists, leaders, saints, and all the interesting and rare human types. with more resources for individualized education, people would have a better sense of how to fit into the world, and would be less rapacious users of resources. we might even have more wisdom. however, humans love sex, love raising children, think tribally, and are good at dumping their waste where they cant see it. Any chance of this happening in a manner that isnt catastrophic and likely plunge us into further cycles of ignorance and suffering: slim to none. anything we can do about this: nope. anything we do now is futile and only makes us feel better individually. aside from a deus ex machina coming down and slaughtering all the idiots who stand in the way, and leaving the rest of us to enjoy our paradise, we are doomed, like the moties from mote in gods eye.
who is dick cheney to pope john pauls george w. The current pope has no chance in hell of being as loved as his predecessor. hes just a filler while the church slowly burns to the ground under its weight of contradictions and CONSCIOUSLY EVIL ACTIONS.
I've got my torch at hand. Lets go! Though I think we should round up the sociopathic execs and dictators and put them behind a wall a la Coventry by heinlein, let them fight over some wells, plows, seed and animals until they are tired of their ayn rand assholism and agree to behavior modification to rejoin society. Death is too good for them, and its ultimately just another expression of sociopathy. (and i dont want the NSA tagging me as dangerously subversive)
When you are sincere in your beliefs and are not trying to con people, it may be considered normal. but when you decieve people, exploit their fears, and encourage revolt, and when you betray the principles of your community in your public statements and actions, as Ms. Palin has done, AND when you betray the trust of your constituents, your "rulers" as we citizens are in a democracy, you have condemned yourself to the lowest levels of hell, per dante. I sincerely hope that Ms. Palin does NOT run for office, does NOT continue to be a voice on the airwaves. I pray she finds remorse for what she is doing, repents, and retires. I do not want to see civil war again in this country, and her ilk are working as hard as they can to bring it about. the tea party types and their corporate backers are much crazier than the weird little socialist groups that protest here and there trying to incite a "revolution", but they have real power, and are wielding it with as much cunning as they can muster. This is, as Hunter Thompson would say "bad craziness".