In this instance, Apple certainly didn't need the patent rights to get the phone out the door. They were given a large sum up-front by ATT to develop the phone in return for an exclusive (5-year???) contract. But that's only because they already had an established, nearly spotless reputation in the consumer electronics industry (iPod).
So in this case, the patent wasn't helpful, but when smaller companies bring new technologies to market, they can leverage a patent to get venture capitol or loans. So it is more useful in that case. And you can't grant patents to some and not to others.
I'd say that if we want to do away with patents (and I think we should), we're going to need to learn to be more open to risk investing in new technologies.
This is actually kinda cool. I don't think it's aimed at serious musicians, more just people messing around. I doubt it will be the end of the world as we know it. . .
Only at companies that are failing because they are poorly managed. If you find yourself working at one of these companies, don't wait to be laid off, start looking for new employment now!
Sometimes I think our understanding of space is even more shaky than our understanding of time. It should be obvious, for example, that distances can only be measured between two objects. So saying that the time ship would need to travel a considerable distance in order to be in the same place is actually rather silly. The distance traveled in space (if that really is distinct from time) is zero if you measure it in any sensible way.
Why would you measure it from some fictitious "stationary" point in space? What does the word stationary really mean in this context? Would it be important in any physical sense?
"In general each year the regulators get more savvy, more risk-adverse, and more demanding."
As an environmental engineer, I can vouch for the accuracy of this. The more the regulators are held responsible, the less they are willing to adsorb any risk, preferring instead to allow the businesses absorb the added cost. This is all going nowhere fast. The problem is the claim that the government SHOULD be responsible. The last thing you want is for the responsibility of failure to fall on someone who has nothing to gain from change and risk. Nothing will change and no risks will be taken.
I see no reason to switch to a sales tax, the income tax is fine. Just get rid of corporate taxes. They don't bring in money on a consistent basis, they bring in very little, and they pervert our stock-market by discouraging companies from posting a profit.
Actually, you are on the anti-freedom side of this argument, because you advocate government action, and that entails the use of force against individuals.
You say that your "right" to throw a punch ends where it contacts someone else. Why, then, is it okay for a police officer to do do the same? Surely their "rights" end there too. The government is a vessel for granting authority to certain individuals. This gay marriage thing is a prime example. Gay "couples" want the legal authority to exclude family members from hospital rooms, or the legal authority to sue their employer to offer their partner specific benefits. It is already messed up that straight couples can do this. I guess you want everyone to be in an equally fucked-up situation. I say "why bother". It's not a step toward freedom, it's a step away from it.
"I believe in and defend freedom, which was once an important American value and forms the basis for the US government."
The Government operates by restricting freedom. Saying that the Government was ever intended to protect freedom is a contradiction. If you want freedom, the government can't help you. And if you think securing your freedom means restricting the freedom of others, you should understand when others feel the same way about your freedoms.
"We already did, in the US constitution."
The US constitution specifically grants the states the right to write laws. Marriage is not a right which is explicitly or implicitly (in my opinion) guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. This amendment to the state constitution is completely legal.
"The rule of law is not always just"
That's true, but if you think the law is important, you should follow it.
"there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it"
And this is one of those times?! Seriously?!!!! What are you thinking? This law doesn't take anything real away from anybody.
It doesn't make any sense at all to complain that others are acting illegally, but then make plans to act illegally yourself. You must see that. Everyone thinks their way is the right way, this not something that is unique to you.
"Sorry, but a simple majority in a state cannot override the republic and the constitution. If they want to ban gay marriage they have to go through the proper motion and overturn the first amendment as well as the federal nondiscrimination laws, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed."
Do you believe in the rule of law? All the laws were followed in passing prop 8. If the law says that a simple majority can approve the amendment, than that's how it is. If you think thats wrong, you have to pass an amendment to change the law. If you say that you would violently oppose these measures if they were passed, you can not also claim to be in favor of the rule of law. Your kind of thinking is what led to the civil war.
It is not a consistent position. You claim that the law is the basis of your argument, but then say that you will oppose the result if you do not favor it. Your position contradicts itself. The only thing that's really consistent is your conviction to do what you think is right.
Some would make that claim about homosexuality. Others would (ironically) make that claim about about making that claim. What makes you such an expert?
"Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking."
So, when you agree with the results of the democratic process, it's wrong for others to "take action", but when you disagree, it's ok to take to the streets? And somehow, he's the one that's causing the problem?! You need to think about the role of government in your life and come to a consistent position before you do something drastic like that. We don't actually need another civil war. . .
"But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint."
So now having a particular political opinion should disqualify you from being an HR director?! This whole debate if FUBAR. We are only 2 steps away from everyone being a complete hypocrite. Does anyone else see that there's something wrong with this picture?
We have got to get rid of this whole government thing before it kills us all.
"Good" leadership requires an absence of other leadership. Trust me, there is no one else at that company right now who can do Steve's job. He would have gotten rid of them long ago. The fact that the company is running so well, after completely reinventing it's business, tells the story. Another person like Steve would have torn the company apart.
They will turn the company over to a big-name, high-priced CEO and the company will live or die based on the ability of the board to select the right person (random chance).
Of course, you have to buy for him to be able to sell. Someone a lot smarter than you will buy from you later after Steve dies and the stock loses 9/10 of it's (nominal) value, but only if it looks like there's leadership that can allow the company continue for long enough for investors to realize they overestimated Steve's role in the company. Say 2 years from now?
Rich people think about the day after tomorrow. Now is not a good time to buy. This stock has nowhere to go but down until at least a few months after Steve is no longer with us. Even then, it will only be worth something if they pull off a successful transition.
So the foxes will guard the foxes. Why is that not reassuring to me? Because any freedom they agree is unnecessary is in jeopardy. Simply by desiring to work in government, they've shown they take a dim view of the importance of freedom.
The more I follow politics, the more I realize that most people are in politics for the same reason: they think the government can help people. There isn't really a lot of disagreement at all. The main difference is the lies they tell to get into power, which is really a function of where they need to get elected.
Hey, at least you will know that the head of the Department of the Treasury (the IRS is a branch of the treasury department) knows where you are coming from. Maybe they will be a bit more lenient. Can't complain about that.
Yes it is. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of an organization. An actual conflict of interest prevents you from making good decisions for an organization no matter what. In any case a person in such a situation will do more harm to an organization than good.
On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible for a government official not to have a conflict of interest. Still, this is so blatant that it undermines the credibility of the administration.
I'm pretty sure that most college professors don't actually make $500,000 per year. My company pays me $30/hr but bills my time to clients at $90. The extra covers administrative overhead, facilities, related costs. It seems to me that the markup schools charge must be a lot more. I don't see why administering a school would be more complicated than administering any other business.
Slashdot Mirror
In this instance, Apple certainly didn't need the patent rights to get the phone out the door. They were given a large sum up-front by ATT to develop the phone in return for an exclusive (5-year???) contract. But that's only because they already had an established, nearly spotless reputation in the consumer electronics industry (iPod).
So in this case, the patent wasn't helpful, but when smaller companies bring new technologies to market, they can leverage a patent to get venture capitol or loans. So it is more useful in that case. And you can't grant patents to some and not to others.
I'd say that if we want to do away with patents (and I think we should), we're going to need to learn to be more open to risk investing in new technologies.
Like the library that burned down and lost the records of my ancestors who immigrated to the US? Libraries like that?
Maybe information wasn't meant to last forever.
This is actually kinda cool. I don't think it's aimed at serious musicians, more just people messing around. I doubt it will be the end of the world as we know it. . .
For reference, 1 kw = 3/4 hp, so this thing could almost power your car. . .
"Do Nice Engineers Finish Last In Tough Times?"
Only at companies that are failing because they are poorly managed. If you find yourself working at one of these companies, don't wait to be laid off, start looking for new employment now!
Sometimes I think our understanding of space is even more shaky than our understanding of time. It should be obvious, for example, that distances can only be measured between two objects. So saying that the time ship would need to travel a considerable distance in order to be in the same place is actually rather silly. The distance traveled in space (if that really is distinct from time) is zero if you measure it in any sensible way.
Why would you measure it from some fictitious "stationary" point in space? What does the word stationary really mean in this context? Would it be important in any physical sense?
"In general each year the regulators get more savvy, more risk-adverse, and more demanding."
As an environmental engineer, I can vouch for the accuracy of this. The more the regulators are held responsible, the less they are willing to adsorb any risk, preferring instead to allow the businesses absorb the added cost. This is all going nowhere fast. The problem is the claim that the government SHOULD be responsible. The last thing you want is for the responsibility of failure to fall on someone who has nothing to gain from change and risk. Nothing will change and no risks will be taken.
I see no reason to switch to a sales tax, the income tax is fine. Just get rid of corporate taxes. They don't bring in money on a consistent basis, they bring in very little, and they pervert our stock-market by discouraging companies from posting a profit.
This problem is easily solved.
Actually, you are on the anti-freedom side of this argument, because you advocate government action, and that entails the use of force against individuals.
You say that your "right" to throw a punch ends where it contacts someone else. Why, then, is it okay for a police officer to do do the same? Surely their "rights" end there too. The government is a vessel for granting authority to certain individuals. This gay marriage thing is a prime example. Gay "couples" want the legal authority to exclude family members from hospital rooms, or the legal authority to sue their employer to offer their partner specific benefits. It is already messed up that straight couples can do this. I guess you want everyone to be in an equally fucked-up situation. I say "why bother". It's not a step toward freedom, it's a step away from it.
"I believe in and defend freedom, which was once an important American value and forms the basis for the US government."
The Government operates by restricting freedom. Saying that the Government was ever intended to protect freedom is a contradiction. If you want freedom, the government can't help you. And if you think securing your freedom means restricting the freedom of others, you should understand when others feel the same way about your freedoms.
"We already did, in the US constitution."
The US constitution specifically grants the states the right to write laws. Marriage is not a right which is explicitly or implicitly (in my opinion) guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. This amendment to the state constitution is completely legal.
"The rule of law is not always just"
That's true, but if you think the law is important, you should follow it.
"there are times when one has to fight to overthrow it"
And this is one of those times?! Seriously?!!!! What are you thinking? This law doesn't take anything real away from anybody.
It doesn't make any sense at all to complain that others are acting illegally, but then make plans to act illegally yourself. You must see that. Everyone thinks their way is the right way, this not something that is unique to you.
"Sorry, but a simple majority in a state cannot override the republic and the constitution. If they want to ban gay marriage they have to go through the proper motion and overturn the first amendment as well as the federal nondiscrimination laws, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed."
Do you believe in the rule of law? All the laws were followed in passing prop 8. If the law says that a simple majority can approve the amendment, than that's how it is. If you think thats wrong, you have to pass an amendment to change the law. If you say that you would violently oppose these measures if they were passed, you can not also claim to be in favor of the rule of law. Your kind of thinking is what led to the civil war.
It is not a consistent position. You claim that the law is the basis of your argument, but then say that you will oppose the result if you do not favor it. Your position contradicts itself. The only thing that's really consistent is your conviction to do what you think is right.
A statement that contradicts itself is a sure sign of hypocracy.
"his actions are un-American and bigoted"
Some would make that claim about homosexuality. Others would (ironically) make that claim about about making that claim. What makes you such an expert?
"Trying to prevent them from being able to do so by passing unconstitutional laws is something else entirely and I'll fight to protect the rights of those he's attacking."
So, when you agree with the results of the democratic process, it's wrong for others to "take action", but when you disagree, it's ok to take to the streets? And somehow, he's the one that's causing the problem?! You need to think about the role of government in your life and come to a consistent position before you do something drastic like that. We don't actually need another civil war. . .
"But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint."
So now having a particular political opinion should disqualify you from being an HR director?! This whole debate if FUBAR. We are only 2 steps away from everyone being a complete hypocrite. Does anyone else see that there's something wrong with this picture?
We have got to get rid of this whole government thing before it kills us all.
"Good" leadership requires an absence of other leadership. Trust me, there is no one else at that company right now who can do Steve's job. He would have gotten rid of them long ago. The fact that the company is running so well, after completely reinventing it's business, tells the story. Another person like Steve would have torn the company apart.
They will turn the company over to a big-name, high-priced CEO and the company will live or die based on the ability of the board to select the right person (random chance).
Of course, you have to buy for him to be able to sell. Someone a lot smarter than you will buy from you later after Steve dies and the stock loses 9/10 of it's (nominal) value, but only if it looks like there's leadership that can allow the company continue for long enough for investors to realize they overestimated Steve's role in the company. Say 2 years from now?
Rich people think about the day after tomorrow. Now is not a good time to buy. This stock has nowhere to go but down until at least a few months after Steve is no longer with us. Even then, it will only be worth something if they pull off a successful transition.
So the foxes will guard the foxes. Why is that not reassuring to me? Because any freedom they agree is unnecessary is in jeopardy. Simply by desiring to work in government, they've shown they take a dim view of the importance of freedom.
"Credibility and ethics are two totally separate things."
They are different in theory, but in practice. . .
"The latter are corrupt. The former are even more dangerous."
But they are all equally wrong.
"It's the job of government to maintain freedom."
Isn't that like saying it is the job of the fox to guard the hen house? The only power the government has is the power to restrict our freedoms.
Sorry, my anarchist ideals are showing through. . .
The more I follow politics, the more I realize that most people are in politics for the same reason: they think the government can help people. There isn't really a lot of disagreement at all. The main difference is the lies they tell to get into power, which is really a function of where they need to get elected.
Hey, at least you will know that the head of the Department of the Treasury (the IRS is a branch of the treasury department) knows where you are coming from. Maybe they will be a bit more lenient. Can't complain about that.
Yes it is. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of an organization. An actual conflict of interest prevents you from making good decisions for an organization no matter what. In any case a person in such a situation will do more harm to an organization than good.
On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible for a government official not to have a conflict of interest. Still, this is so blatant that it undermines the credibility of the administration.
I'm pretty sure that most college professors don't actually make $500,000 per year. My company pays me $30/hr but bills my time to clients at $90. The extra covers administrative overhead, facilities, related costs. It seems to me that the markup schools charge must be a lot more. I don't see why administering a school would be more complicated than administering any other business.